A Balanced
and
Coherent
System of
Assessment
Thomas W. Many, Ed. D.
tmany96@aol.com
Evolving
Thinking About Assessment
Evolving
Thinking About Assessment
… Ideas about assessment have undergone
important changes in recent years. In the new view,
assessment and learning are two sides of the same
coin. Assessment provides an operational definition of
standards in that it defines in measurable terms what
teachers should teach and students should learn.
… Ideas about assessment have undergone
important changes in recent years. In the new view,
assessment and learning are two sides of the same
coin. Assessment provides an operational definition of
standards in that it defines in measurable terms what
teachers should teach and students should learn.
Redding, The Mega System (2006), p. 86
The Model
Redding, The Mega System (2006), p. 86
The Model
…Relying on any one model would be
seriously flawed assessment strategy.
Assessment of a student s work should
provide a rich array of information on his
or her progress and achievement.”
The challenge is to match appropriate
assessment strategies to curricular goals
and instructional methodologies.
DuFour & Eaker (2003)!
…Relying on any one model would be
seriously flawed assessment strategy.
Assessment of a student s work should
provide a rich array of information on his
or her progress and achievement.”
The challenge is to match appropriate
assessment strategies to curricular goals
and instructional methodologies.
DuFour & Eaker (2003)!
1
The Model
Literate users rely on continuous
assessment FOR learning, marked
with periodic assessments OF
learning, using the full range of
methods.
Learning
Four
Categories
Of Assessment
Diagnostic
Prescriptive
Diagnostic-Prescriptive Assessments
Form of
Assessment
Embedded
Periodic
Annual
Diagnostic-prescriptive assessments are quick diagnostic
tests used to prescribe appropriate learning activities for a
student or group of students. The test may be pencil-andpaper test, oral quizzes, or show-me assessments that a
teacher can quickly and conveniently administer to
determine each student s level of mastery of the lesson s
objectives.
S. Redding, The Mega System (2006), p. 86
Redding, The Mega System (2006), p. 86
2
Diagnostic and
Prescriptive
Ongoing
Student
VV and Teacher
Formative Assessment
Unit
Identify Students Eligible for
Support in a Pyramid of
Interventions
Collaboratively Developed
CFAs
Weekly
More Formative
Most Formative
Daily
Common
Assessments
Classroom
Assessments
Semester
Identify Students Eligible for
Ongoing Remedial and
Programmatic Support
Calibrate and Pace
the Curriculum
Collaboratively Developed
DBAs
Monthly
More Summative
District Level
Assessments
A Balanced and Coherent
System of Assessment
 Kildeer Countryside CCSD 96
May not be reprinted without written permission
Annual
State Mandated
Summative Assessment
Annual
Most Summative
External
Assessments
A Balanced and Coherent
System of Assessment
Classroom
Assessments
Common
Assessment
District Level
Assessments
External
Assessments
Based on your
understanding of
a balanced and
coherent system
of assessment,
list (by name) the
assessments
presently used in
your school
under the
appropriate
category.
 Kildeer Countryside CCSD 96
May not be reprinted without written permission
Best Practices/Tom W. Many, Ed.D.
A Balanced and Coherent System of Assessment
“As we look to the future, we must balance annual, interim or benchmark, and classroom assessment. Only then will we meet the critically
important information needs of all instructional decision makers.”
-Rick Stiggins, 2007
Principals consider two priorities when aligning
assessment practices in their school. The first is to
ensure that whatever assessment system a school
embraces reflects a balance of both formative and
summative assessments. A second and equally important priority is to ensure that those using the system
understand the purpose of each assessment. Both
of these priorities are essential to the creation of a
balanced and coherent system of assessment.
In District 96, we have embraced a balanced and coherent system of assessment using a variety of assessments
arranged along a continuum from most formative to
most summative. The four categories of assessment:
classroom assessments (most formative), common
assessments (more formative), district benchmark assessments (more summative) and external assessments
(most summative), are all valuable but each serves a
distinctly different purpose (see graphic below).
The first category of a balanced and coherent system of
assessment is labeled “most formative.” Ongoing, daily,
sometimes in the moment, these classroom level assessments align directly with what teachers teach. Sam
Redding describes this first category of “most formative” classroom assessments as “quick diagnostic tests
used to prescribe appropriate learning activities for a
student or group of students.” He elaborates, “These
tests may be pencil-and-paper tests, oral quizzes, or
‘show-me’ assessments that a teacher can quickly and
conveniently administer to determine each student’s
level of mastery of the lesson’s objectives.”
At the opposite end of the continuum from the “most
formative” assessments are those described as “most
summative.” The best example of an assessment in the
“most summative” category is the once-a-year, highstakes state examinations so prevalent in US public
schools. Interestingly, James Pophalm observes that,
A Balanced and Coherent
System
Assessment
A Balanced and Coherent
System of
of Assessment
Classroom
Assessments
Common
Assessments
Most Formative
Daily
Ongoing
Student
VV and Teacher
Formative Assessment
More Formative
Weekly
Unit
Collaboratively Developed
CFAs
Diagnostic and
Prescriptive
District Level
Assessments
External
Assessments
More Summative
Monthly
Most Summative
Annual
Semester
Collaboratively Developed
DBAs
Annual
State Mandated
Summative Assessment
Calibrate and Pace
the Curriculum
Identify Students Eligible for
Support in a Pyramid of
Interventions
Identify Students Eligible for
Ongoing Remedial and
Programmatic Support
8 www.tepsa.org
! Kildeer Countryside CCSD 96
May not be reprinted without written permission
March/April 2010
while these annual assessments “play an important
role in monitoring student progress and providing
system-level information for policymakers, there is
no evidence at this time that such assessments increase student achievement.”
Within the category of “most summative” assessment,
Redding includes “state assessments and norm-referenced achievement tests that provide an annual assessment of each student’s and the school’s progress by
subject area and grade level.” These assessments help
individual schools or districts target areas in which
groups of students may be underperforming; however,
these “most summative” assessments do not provide
information that is timely enough to assist teachers in
making instructional decisions that help individual
students learn. Teachers know that receiving feedback
on student progress only once a year—no matter how
valid or reliable—simply is not often enough.
Assessments from the “most formative” and “most
summative” categories are common in most schools
but it is the interim assessments included within the
middle two categories of “more formative” and “more
summative” that offer teachers and principals the biggest opportunity to impact student learning.
Redding maintains that assessments from the “more
summative” category should be administered to
each class, course or grade level two to four times a
year. These periodic, benchmark assessments “enable
teacher teams to see how students are progressing
towards mastery of standards that will be included on
state assessments.” Most importantly, “the periodic
assessments help bring a closer alignment between
instruction and annual standards-based assessments.”
Monitoring student performance on a periodic basis
with these “more summative” assessments allows
teachers to predict which students will be successful
through the core curriculum and which will require
additional time and support. On a very practical level,
assessments from the “more summative” category
help calibrate the curriculum and pace of instruction.
While practitioners find periodic data generated by the
“more summative” benchmark assessments more useful than the once-a-year autopsy data generated by the
“most summative” assessments, the “more summative”
assessments still are not timely enough to guide a teams’
day-to-day instructional decision making. Teachers need
more frequent and formative assessments at the building
level to effectively monitor student learning.
Principals address this need by encouraging the use of
“more formative” common assessments embedded in
the teaching and learning process. The primary purpose of these common assessments is to provide teachTEPSA News
ers with frequent information about student learning.
Redding describes these “more formative” assessments
as “learning activities aligned to objectives with criteria
for mastery which enable a teacher to check mastery
within the context of instruction.” Redding continued,
“by completing these assigned activities, students demonstrate a level of mastery of the objectives the activities are designed to teach or to reinforce.”
Designed by teams of teachers at the building level,
these “more formative” common assessments provide
the greatest leverage to teacher teams because they are
so closely linked to what is being taught in the classroom and generate results that are timely enough to
allow for adjustments in the sequence of instruction.
As Carol Ann Tomlinson reports, “Assessments that
came at the end of a unit—although important manifestations of student knowledge, understanding, and
skill—were less useful to me as a teacher than were
assessments that occurred during a unit of study.”
What is clear is that if teachers and principals are to be
successful, they need information about student learning from a variety of sources. DuFour and Eaker caution
that, “Relying on any one model of assessment would be
a seriously flawed assessment strategy.” Savvy principals
understand that assessment systems must be balanced
and include both summative and formative assessment.
Principals also understand the importance of working
with teachers to bring coherence to the assessment
system in their school. Formative and summative
assessments are not, in and of themselves, inherently
better or worse than the other. What is important is
that teachers understand the purpose of each assessment they use in their classroom. As Tomlinson
observed, “The greatest power of assessment information lies in its capacity to help me [the teacher] see
how to become a better teacher.” 
During the course of a career spanning more than 30
years, Dr. Tom W. Many has served as a classroom
teacher, principal and superintendent—all at the
elementary level.
Read more from Dr. Many at http://www.tepsa.org/displaycommon.
cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=235. Share your experiences and/or
questions by emailing feedback@tepsa.org.
References
DuFour, Richard and Rebecca, Eaker, R. & Many, T. (2006).
Learning by Doing, A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work. Solution Tree: Bloomington, IN.
Redding, S. (2006). The Mega System Deciding. Learning. Connecting. A Handbook for Continuous Improvement Within a
Community of the School. Academic Development Institute,
Lincoln, IL.
Stiggins, R. (2007, October 17). “Five assessment myths and their
consequences.” Education Week. Vol. 27. No. 8. pp. 28, 29.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2007, December/January). “Learning to love
assessment.” Educational Leadership. Vol. 65, No. 4.
www.tepsa.org 9
Embedded Assessments
Periodic Assessments
Embedded assessments are learning activities aligned to
objectives with criteria for mastery which enable a teacher to
check mastery within the context of instruction. By completing
these assigned activities, students demonstrate a level of
mastery of the objectives the activities are designed to teach
or to reinforce.
Periodic assessments, administered for each grade level two
to four times a year, enable the teacher teams to see how
students are progressing towards mastery of standards that
will be included on state assessments. The periodic
assessments help bring a closer alignment between
instruction and annual standards-based assessments.
S. Redding, The Mega System (2006), p. 86
Annual Assessments
Annual assessments include state assessments and
norm-referenced achievement tests and provide an annual
assessment of each student s progress and the school s
progress by subject area and grade level. These
assessments are most useful in making programmatic and
placement decisions.
S. Redding, The Mega System (2006), p. 86
S. Redding, The Mega System (2006), p. 86
Discuss the implications
of the following statement
“…Common, team-developed frequent
formative assessments are such a powerful tool
in school improvement that, once again, no
team of teachers should be allowed to opt out of
creating them.”
- Learning by Doing
3
Break the statement down
and examine each of the key words
“Common, team-developed, frequent, and formative assessments”
• Common
• Team-developed
• Frequent
• Formative
Common Assessment
Schools with the greatest improvements in
student achievement consistently used
common assessments.
Reeves, Accountability in Action (2004)
Support for Using
Common Assessments
According to Doug Reeves, Rick Stiggins, Rick
DuFour, Dylan Wiliam, and others, there is a
growing body of evidence that suggests using
common assessments that reflect the essential
curriculum in combination with providing
students with more time and support can help
all students learn to high levels.
Benefits of Team Developed
Common Assessments
When teams create common assessments they
introduce a kind of professional dissonance into
team meetings that is healthy. The simple act of
creating a common assessment requires teachers
to reflect upon and examine their practice.
4
Benefits of Team Developed
Common Assessments
1.  Improve student achievement levels.
2.  Clarify curriculum and intervention strategies.
3.  Enhance communication between teachers
about student learning.
4.  Create opportunities for teachers to sharpen
pedagogy and deepen understanding of content.
Benefits of Team Developed
Common Assessments
The use of common, formative assessments
enables teachers to share results of their
instruction. When based on the results of common
assessments, job-alike meetings provide an
opportunity for teachers to learn from one another
which is one of the best sources for discovering
strategies that work.
Benefits of Team Developed
Common Assessments
Reviewing assessments results leads to
conversations about:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Have we taught this skill or concept?
What type of instruction seems most effective?
What misconceptions are forming?
Is the assessment appropriate?
Who are we leaving behind? (Who needs additional support or
instruction?)
Benefits of Team Developed
Common Assessments
The use of common, formative assessments
enables teachers to share results of their
instruction. When based on the results of common
assessments, job-alike meetings provide an
opportunity for teachers to learn from one another
which is one of the best sources for discovering
strategies that work.
5
Research consistently shows that
the regular use of high-quality
formative assessments increase
student achievement.
Research Support
for Formative Assessment
“In reviewing 250 studies from around the world,
published between 1987 and 1998, we found that a
focus by teachers on assessment for learning, as
opposed to assessment of learning, produced a
substantial increase in students’ achievement.”
Black & Wiliam, Assessment and Classroom Learning, Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy, and Practice (1998), 5(1), 7–73.
Research Support
for Formative Assessment
“In reviewing 250 studies from around the world,
published between 1987 and 1998, we found that a
focus by teachers on assessment for learning, as
opposed to assessment of learning, produced a
substantial increase in students’ achievement.”
Black & Wiliam, Assessment and Classroom Learning, Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy, and Practice (1998), 5(1), 7–73.
Research Support
for Formative Assessment
“Reviews of research in this area by Natriello (1987)
and Crooks (1988) were updated by Black & Wiliam
(1998) who concluded that regular use of classroom
formative assessment would raise student achievement
by 0.4 to 0.7 standard deviations - enough to raise the
United States to the top five in international rankings.”
Wiliam, Content Then Process: Teacher Learning Communities in the
Service of Formative Assessment (2007) (Unpublished manuscript)
6
Research Support
for Formative Assessment
Research Support
for Formative Assessment
Five reviews of the research in this area (Black &
Wiliam, 1998, Crooks, 1988, Kluger & DeNist, 1996,
Natriello, 1987, and Nyquist, 2003) synthesized a total
of more than 4,000 research studies undertaken
during the 40 years. The conclusion was clear: When
implemented well, formative assessment can
effectively double the speed of student learning.
Five reviews of the research in this area (Black &
Wiliam, 1998, Crooks, 1988, Kluger & DeNist, 1996,
Natriello, 1987, and Nyquist, 2003) synthesized a total
of more than 4,000 research studies undertaken
during the 40 years. The conclusion was clear: When
implemented well, formative assessment can
effectively double the speed of student learning.
D. Wiliam (2007)
Research Support
for Formative Assessment
“In other words, formative assessment, effectively
implemented, can do as much or more to improve
student achievement than any of the most powerful
instructional interventions (such as) intensive reading
instruction, one-on-one tutoring and the like.”
D. Wiliam (2007)
The Age-Old Argument
We can choose to ignore the evidence, but the
consensus has never been more clear.
Research consistently demonstrates:
The effective regular use of high-quality formative
assessments increases student achievement.
Darling-Hammond & Bransford, (Eds.), Preparing Teachers
for a Changing World (2005), p. 277
7
Summative Assessment
Best Practice
“Summative assessment is the attempt
to summarize student learning at some
point in time, say the end of a course.
[Summative assessments] are not
designed to give feedback useful to
teachers and students during the
learning process.”
Teachers and administrators
absolutely must be
assessment literate.
FairTest Examiner (Winter 1999)
Formative Assessment
Crucial Distinction
All those activities undertaken by
teachers and by their students [that]
provide information to be used as
feedback to modify the teaching and
learning activities in which they are
engaged
Assessment OF Learning (summative):
How much have students learned as of
a particular point in time?
Black & William (1998)
Assessment FOR Learning (formative):
How can we use assessment to help
students learn more?
8
Crucial Distinction
Formative Assessment
Assessment OF Learning (summative):
If the data is used to prove what has
already been learned, it is summative.
From a student’s perspective, an
assessment is formative if it meets the
following criteria:
Assessment FOR Learning (formative):
If the data is used to improve the
learning, it is formative.
1.  The data is used to identify areas where
students need more time and support,
2.  The data is used to target the strategies
used to help students learn, and
3.  Students are given another opportunity to
demonstrate mastery of the content.
Rick DuFour, 2011
Formative Assessment
From a teacher’s perspective, an
assessment is formative if it meets the
following criteria:
1.  The data is used by individual teachers to
identify specific skills where students did
not perform as well as expected, and
2.  The data is used by the team as a whole
to identify areas of instruction that need
improvement across the entire team .
Formative Assessment
After discussing the results of common formative
assessments, teachers provide more time and
support based on the results. Effective interventions
possess three essential characteristics:
1.  They present the concepts differently,
2.  Engage students differently,
3.  Provide students with successful learning experiences.
Thomas R. Guskey,
Formative Assessment: The Contribution of Benjamin S Bloom. (2009)
9
The Age-Old Argument (Again!)
Testing advocates argued that more
frequent testing would increase instructional
effectiveness. Others noted that frequent
testing could take time away from
instruction.
Banget-Drowns, Kulik, & Kulik, Effect of Frequent Classroom Testing,
Journal of Educational Research (November–December, 1991)
BASRC Findings
BASRC Findings
Thirty-two matched pairs of schools
Thirty-two matched pairs of schools
1.
2.
3.
Schools frequently assessed student progress.
Teachers learned how to analyze data.
Clear and focused goals centered on improving
student achievement.
(Bay Area School Reform Project, 2003)
1.  Schools frequently assessed student progress.
2.
3.
Teachers learned how to analyze data.
Clear and focused goals centered on improving student
achievement.
(Bay Area School Reform Project, 2003)
10
BASRC Findings
High achieving schools
1.  Never tested or
tested only a few
times a year - 36%
2.  Tested a few times a
month or as often as
weekly - 64%
Low achieving schools
1.  Never tested or
tested only a few
times a year - 79%
2.  Tested a few times a
month or as often as
weekly - 21%
Impact of
Frequent Assessment
In seven of eight studies, the high frequency groups
scored higher than the intermediate-frequency group.
The average effect size for the high frequency groups
was .49; the average effect size for intermediatefrequency groups was .23
Banget-Drowns, Kulik, and Kulik.
Effect of Frequent Classroom Testing J. Ed Research, Nov/Dec, 1991
Impact of
Frequent Assessment
Twenty-nine of thirty-five studies found positive effects
from frequent testing. Six found negative results.
Thirteen of the twenty-nine studies with positive results
reported statistically significant results.
Banget-Drowns, Kulik, and Kulik.
Effect of Frequent Classroom Testing J. Ed Research, Nov/Dec, 1991
Impact of
Frequent Assessment
Interim assessments should be given often enough so
teachers get timely feedback on student learning, but
spaced widely enough so there is time for instruction to
take hold and produce measurable progress before the
next assessment.
Kim Marshall,.
Interim Assessment: Keys to Successful Implementation (2006)
11
Summary of Research on
Frequency of Assessment
Achievement Gains Associated With
Number of Assessments Over 15 Weeks
# of Assessments
Effect Size
Percentile Gain
0
0
0
1
0.34
13.5
5
0.53
20.0
10
0.60
22.5
15
0.66
24.5
20
0.71
26.0
25
0.78
28.5
30
0.82
29.0
1.  The frequent use of classroom testing increases
achievement but at a diminishing rate of return.
2.  Superior performance was obtained from students
who answered questions on a large number of short
tests rather than a small number of long tests.
Banget-Drowns, Kulik, and Kulik.
Effect of Frequent Classroom Testing J. Ed Research, Nov/Dec, 1991
Bangent-Drowns, Kulik & Kulik, 1991, as reported in Marzano, The Art and Science of Teaching, 2007.
Implications for Practice
A formative assessment over fewer standards taken
more frequently is more likely to result in higher levels
of student learning.
An assessment covering two or three standards using four or
five items per standard generates more information about the
learner than an assessment covering eight to ten standards
using one or two questions per standard. Smaller chunks
generate deeper understanding of the learning, catch potential
problems early, and focus the intervention.
"(!$
&$"
'#$
+"
!"#$
!"
!"#$
#"
%&#$
$$
!"#$
%&$
!"#$
%'"
%&#$
%("
!"#$
&%"
!"#$
&)"
%&#$
&*"
!"#$
!+"
!"#$
!!"
%&#$
!#"
)**+,$
!"#$%
%
&'% &()*#%+","-%'.."../"()%01""2%34%
%
56'%7%5"89:"*%6;//;(%'.."../"().%01""2.$<=>=?@=?A=@?=@B=<3=<<4%%
%
CD'7CE.)*E9)%D"(9:/8*2%'.."../"()%01""2.$%F=?G=@H=<>4%
%
+","-%?=@=<%7%I",E"1%J()"*,"()E;(%K-89"/"().%
%
6L5 %68-EM;*(E8%L)8(N8*N.%5".)%01""2.%@F7<34%
,-.-/"!"
,-.-/"&"
,-.-/"%"
0.12/13/-"45677/"89:-;.-9:279<"
Paul Joens-Poulton
Director, Curriculum and Instruction
Mendocino County Office of Education
12
What Makes A Difference
What Makes A Difference
By itself, the feedback offered through regular
classroom formative assessment does little to
improve student learning. In other words, formative
assessments alone yield little if any improvement.
Regardless of their form, structure, or quality,
formative assessments simple measure student
learning - they do not improve it.
It s not whether schools test students but what they
do with the results that make the difference. Schools
that are closing the achievement gap tested their
students more often and used the results to make
changes in their instructional programs.
Thomas R. Guskey,
Formative Assessment: The Contribution of Benjamin S Bloom. (2009)
Frequency of Meetings
60
50
40
Gap closers
Non-Gap closers
30
20
10
0
A few times a A few times a A few times a
year
month
week
The schools that were closing the gap changed
schedules or made other arrangements to give
teachers time to discuss the results.
What Makes A Difference
The best ideas for effective corrective activities interventions - generally come from fellow teachers.
Teaching colleagues often can offer new ways of
presenting concepts, different examples, and
alternative materials. Professional opportunities that
provide teachers with time for such sharing reduce the
workload of individual teachers and typically yield
higher quality activities.
Thomas R. Guskey,
Formative Assessment: The Contribution of Benjamin S Bloom. (2009)
13
Good feedback
generates good thinking
•
•
•
•
•
Interim
Assessments
Item and error analysis
Peer scoring based on rubric
Self-scoring based on rubric
Student requests for targeted feedback
Correlation of questions to standards and
learning targets
(Paul Black, 2003)
© Kildeer Countryside CCSD 96
May not be reprinted without written permission
Implementing
Interim Assessments
Implementing
Interim Assessments
Of all the ways that a school or district can
intervene to improve student achievement, interim
assessments are the most powerful. The effective
use of interim assessments helps principals see the
results of what teachers do in the classroom rather
than looking only at the process of instruction.
The challenge faced by teacher leaders and
principals alike is …finding ways to foster this
quality of relentless follow-up in every classroom,
every grade level team, and every department.
K. Marshall, New Leaders for New Schools, (2006)
Interim Assessments: Keys to Successful Implementation
K. Marshall, New Leaders for New Schools, (2006)
Interim Assessments: Keys to Successful Implementation
14