We’re committed to helping states and school districts design and implement assessment and accountability systems that support meaningful educational outcomes and student achievement.
We help states and school districts design assessments and assessment systems that meet technical and policy goals to support student learning and for other critical uses.
We’re a leader in designing and implementing accountability systems for states and school districts to meet key federal and state requirements that also support continuous improvement efforts.
RILS offers a unique, collaborative learning opportunity for educators and assessment professionals across the country. Hear from some of our multi-year attendees about what makes the conference so special and how it helps support better assessment and accountability practices nationwide. This year’s conference focused on Improving the Selection, Use, and Evaluation of Interim Assessments.
This is the sixth in a series of CenterLine posts by our 2019 summer interns and their Center mentors based on their project and the assessment and accountability issues they addressed this summer. Calvary Diggs from the University of Minnesota worked with Nathan Dadey on a literature review on the use and effectiveness of interim assessments.
This is the fifth in a series of CenterLine posts by our 2019 summer interns and their Center mentors based on their project and the assessment and accountability issues they addressed this summer. Victoria Tanaka, from the University of Georgia, worked with Chris Domaleski on a review of the reporting of subscores on states’ large-scale assessments.
This is the fourth in a series of CenterLine posts by our 2019 summer interns and their Center mentors based on their project and the assessment and accountability issues they addressed this summer. Zachary Feldberg, from the University of Georgia, worked with Scott Marion on a systematic review of states’ large-scale educational assessment policies.
This is the third in a series of CenterLine posts by our 2019 summer interns and their Center mentors based on their project and the assessment and accountability issues they addressed this summer; and it is the second post by Nikole Gregg. Nikole is from James Madison University and worked with Brian Gong on how states have attempted to promote equity through the design of their ESSA accountability systems.
This is the second in a series of CenterLine posts by our 2019 summer interns and their Center mentors based on their project and the assessment and accountability issues they addressed this summer. Nikole Gregg from James Madison University worked with Brian Gong on how states have attempted to promote equity through the design of their ESSA accountability systems.
This is the first in a series of CenterLine posts by our 2019 summer interns and their Center mentors based on their project and the assessment and accountability issues they addressed this summer. Brittney Hernandez from the University of Connecticut worked with Scott Marion on assessment literacy for policymakers.
In my previous glass-half-empty post, I outlined my considerable reservations with the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA) component of the Every Students Succeeds Act (ESSA).
Without a doubt, the public is skeptical about using machine scoring for examinees’ written responses. This skepticism makes sense because we know that machines do not score all elements of writing equally well. Machines do not “understand” creativity, irony, humor, allegory, and other literary techniques, opening them to criticism for their insufficiency in evaluating some of these more subtle qualities of writing.
This post is the last in my three-part series on competency-based grading. In Part 1, I describe the key similarities and differences between traditional, standards-based, and competency-based grading practices.
If you've ever worked with someone from the Center, been in a Center staff meeting, or even had dinner with someone from the Center, you know that we refer to Theories of Action incessantly. It may sound wonky and weedy (and it is), but there's a reason why we value it so much. That's because a theory of action (TOA) can help us clarify what we truly believe should happen if a program or system is implemented.
Defining a Theory of Action to Help Guide Longer-Term Goals
I am encouraged that so many educational leaders are wrestling with systematically bringing educational reforms to scale. Unfortunately, as these leaders have come to realize, achieving widespread implementation of meaningful reforms is really hard – especially when pursuing a goal of increasing assessment literacy.
This post is based on an invited presentation Charlie DePascale made at the nineteenth annual Maryland Assessment Research Center (MARC) conference at the University of Maryland on November 8, 2019.
“Our teachers are thrilled that the new summative state assessment is so much shorter. Now, what additional student scores can we report from it to help them improve instruction?”
