Teaching is filled with diverse experiences, and we often remember those that stand out. Our involvement in curriculum-aligned assessments has had a lasting impact on our perspectives and motivated us to engage in research studies to explore their potential.
This is a brief look back into the past:
Laura: “As a teacher in the mid-1990s, I taught from an anthology of literature. There were no commercial interims. I designed all of my own assignments and assessments. It was a lot of work. But I knew that what I was testing was directly related to what I was teaching. And the data that came back was immediately useful to me in understanding what my students had understood and what I needed to refocus on. This tight fit was important to me – and it meant I could give my students very specific feedback.”
Elizabeth: “As a teacher in the early 2000s, I had robust curricula for science, math, and English Language Arts. My students and I loved exploring works from Gary Paulsen’s “Hatchet” or Alma Flor Ada’s “My Name is Maria” to analyze conflict, characterization, and author’s use of language. What a reward, when that “aha” moment occurred for my students – the light in their eyes when they grasped concepts. Undoubtedly the curriculum was robust given the thousands of students engaging in similar learning in my district. And yet, why didn’t we have a localized assessment of the rich learning? What an amazing opportunity for my students if I could administer a sound assessment in a regular cadence, where I could see, in real time, the meaningful effort of their learning.”
This vision is a reality at CenterPoint. We have designed and built assessments that are intentionally aligned to the standards and skills emphasized in a district’s curriculum – AND given through the year, rather than at the end of the year. A curriculum-aligned, through-year assessment approach is what we previously described –a way for educators to consistently measure learning, understand students’ needs, provide quick intervention, and celebrate achievements in a manner that is relevant and practical within the classroom. This is a sea change from what we experienced when teaching.
Our assessments align with high-quality, green-rated curricula such as Illustrative Mathematics (IM), EL Education (EL), OpenSciEd, and Core Knowledge. They span kindergarten through high school in ELA, Math, and Science. The primary objective of these assessments is to help build a coherent system of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. As Laura likes to say, “When these three ‘legs of the stool’ are aligned, student assessments are fair, and teachers get more useful information to inform their instructional decisions.”
What would it look like if these kinds of assessments undergirded the education system – assessments that are administered through the school year, are more proximate to student learning, and provide data that is quicker and more useful for teachers. Could these kinds of assessments supplement or supplant traditional end of year assessments?
We decided to find out.
In 2022-2023, we participated in an initiative to explore a “new generation of through-year assessment solutions.” Coordinated by Education First, this effort was a collaboration between three assessment organizations (CenterPoint, NWEA, and New Meridian) and eight states, testing different versions of through-year assessments.
We collaborated with a district in Maryland and another in Wisconsin, that are teaching the Illustrative Mathematics (IM) middle grades curriculum and using our aligned interim assessments. In collaboration with Professor Dr. Hong Jiao from the University of Maryland, College Park, we compared the outcomes of our interim assessments with the results of Maryland’s and Wisconsin’s end of year assessments. Simultaneously, we examined the alignment between the standards assessed by our interim assessments and the states’ summative assessments.
The results of our study were promising!
The comparative analysis revealed that our CenterPoint IM interim assessments effectively determined students’ performance on their respective state summative assessments. Dr. Jiao indicated that the scores from our “interim assessments predicted the state summative test scores with predictive power”. Moreover, she stated “Adding the demographic variables including LEP status, gender, and race increased the predictive power slightly.” This led to the conclusion that the additional variables enhanced the understanding of the predictive capability.
Additionally, our analyses uncovered a strong alignment between the standards and domains covered in both the interim and state summative assessments. This means that the content and skills tested in our interim assessments closely match those in the state summative tests, further reinforcing the reliability of our interim assessments as predictors of state test performance.
These findings were beneficial for our partners. The Wisconsin school network indicated that the study allowed them to “critically examine the standards we were prioritizing against the standards assessed on our state assessment. Ultimately, that led us to identify gaps that we could address this year through curriculum and pacing decisions….”
Once again, we ask: if curriculum-aligned interims can demonstrate predictive capabilities, producing similarities in both results and alignment with summative, could they supplement or supplant traditional end of year assessments?
The evidence from our study and the other studies from the Education First collaborative show that it is quite possible. Dive deeper into the studies here.
Looking ahead – the U.S. Department of Education has just released new guidance for the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA). Based on our findings, we believe that our work points the way for future work.
We are excited to continue our work and expand our research to include other districts and states. Our goal is to enhance classroom practices and make assessments more meaningful for students and educators. We have the tools and will continue to provide them to educators. We hope that in the future we are able to look back on our partnership and collaboration with education communities and see the positive impacts we’ve had on our education system.
by Laura Slover and Elizabeth Gilbert
Laura Slover is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of CenterPoint, and all of its subsidiaries. Starting in January she will be leaving her role as CEO and leading an initiative with Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and ETS to develop a suite of assessment and analytic tools that will capture what is required for American students to succeed in K–12, postsecondary education, and beyond.
Elizabeth Figueras-Gilbert is the Director of Content Operations and DEI Chair at CenterPoint Education Solutions. She plays a critical role in project oversight of CenterPoint’s high-quality curriculum, assessment, and professional development products.