assessment, accountability, and other important stuff
The relationship between assessment and learning is one that we’ve been struggling to understand for as long as I can remember. Before we jump headlong into reimagining assessment, it will be beneficial to clarify what we mean by both terms as well as the relationship(s) between them.
Let’s begin with a simple filling in the blank item: Assessment ______ Learning.
All signs suggest that we might finally be emerging from our decade-long period of malaise regarding large-scale testing. Advances in AI, flexibility from the feds, and new buckets of money are making people giddy. Happy Days Are Here Again! In such heady times, however, it’s critical that we step back and take a sober look at our place in the education world.
Educational measurement begins in the real world. On that point there seems to be universal agreement. Where, however, does it end? Consensus on that question is not quite as strong. For a while now, I’ve had a nagging feeling that something was missing from our definition of educational measurement. Educational measurement has to end where it began; that is, in the real world.
In their recent EM:IP article, Susan Brookhart and Sarah Bonner call on large-scale testing (i.e., traditional educational measurement) and classroom assessment to communicate and learn from each other. In that spirit, this week’s blog post asks whether classroom assessment can help us find more meaning in our annoyingly meaningless scales.
I truly enjoyed reading the many posts describing the amazing work showcased at NCME in LA; and the positive, uplifting experience that the conference was for everyone. But in this week’s post I want to acknowledge the contribution of those who take it upon themselves to poke, prod, and noodge at every presentation and in response to every post. It takes a village and they are part of ours.
A bonus blog post in honor of #NCME2026 conference week. Last month I tugged on Superman’s cape when I suggested that preserving the NAEP trend might not be in our best interest. Today, I refresh a presentation from the early days of the CCSS, PARCC, and Smarter Balanced to clarify that reporting a NAEP trend is not the problem. Rather, the problem may be in the way that we in educational measurement and assessment tie trends to fixed achievement standards and scales.
They say that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, but this past winter I decided to try to try my hand at solving the New York Times Crossword, something I had avoided doing to this point in my life. Along the way I acquired a little proficiency in solving crosswords, I remembered some important lessons about teaching and learning new skills, in general. Time will spent.
We’ve made it to April!
In the spirit of this season of rebirth and renewal, in this week’s TL: DR blog post I ponder and prophesy on the current state and future of our field.
I wrap up my March series, NAEP by the Numbers, with the number .05 and a discussion of significance and differences. The significance of NAEP lies far beyond score differences within and across years that are statistically significant at the .05 level. Much of what makes NAEP significant is that it is different. Different from state tests. Different from tests administered by schools and districts. It serves a different purpose. A purpose for which it is well-designed. Simply put, NAEP is NAEP.
“All good things must come to an end.” In the third post of my NAEP by the Numbers series, I ponder historically, philosophically, and a little bit technically, on whether that time has come for something that many believe are very good things – the NAEP trend lines.
Embrace the Absurd 