Balanced Assessment Systems, Reimagined as a Relay Race

Reflections from our annual conference

A second thing that really struck me: who has the real power to change the misalignment? Districts are not simply implementers of state policy or consumers of vendors’ products. They are the leverage point—the exchange zone where the baton handoffs either happen or stall. 

Districts can demand more from their providers, shape their own support expectations, and make decisions that protect teachers’ time and sharpen the focus on student learning. That realization framed the way I processed the sessions this year. Instruction, assessment, and curriculum are distinct legs of the relay race; the instructional vision is the baton, and districts provide the exchange zone where the handoffs must happen.

Three Theories of Action for Three Legs of the Relay

At least three different TOAs are always operating within our systems (often disjointedly), as outlined in the familiar Curriculum-Instruction-Assessment (CIA) framing. These three legs of the relay are distinct roles that only produce a win when the baton moves cleanly between them:

Instruction. This is where educators and users of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) sometimes have to create their own assessments. Educators juggle pedagogy and content expertise to support student learning. They focus on helping students grow as much as possible in a given year or class term, regardless of their starting point. 

Assessment. Here, developers have distinct approaches across assessments for expressly different purposes. These purposes are often reduced to labels like summative, interim, and formative, with interim approaches often co-opting formative assessment practices. Describing the need and purpose of assessment practice is more useful than categorizing it. 

Curriculum. Leaders face countless choices, some high-quality and others more marketing than support. Their development is sometimes guided more by instructional logic (appropriate) and less by assessment logic (sometimes appropriate), leaving districts with the challenge of sorting through the noise to find what genuinely advances student learning.

Where Misalignment Begins

These three legs share the same overarching goal—student learning—but their sub-goals and operational approaches differ. Misalignment typically emerges early. Summative assessment emphasizes alignment to standards, curriculum emphasizes translating standards into coherent sequences for classrooms while also responding to marketplace pressures, and instruction emphasizes the daily work of applying pedagogy, content knowledge, and strategies to engage students and support their day-to-day growth. Too often these TOAs run in parallel—like runners who never pass the baton—leaving schools with fragmented tools and messages.

This is where the instructional vision becomes essential. It acts as the north star, clarifying what resources align with core goals for student learning and what does not. Without that vision, schools and districts can end up struggling to enact their vision for teaching and learning. 

The Threats Are Real Because The Variables Are Many

RILS reinforced that threats to balance don’t come from a single bad policy or test; they come from the sheer number of variables in play: standards, curriculum, HQIM, assessment selection, assessment use, policy constraints, and educator capacity.

Without a clear instructional vision to act as a north star, schools lack a way to judge quality or fit. Like that baton in the relay race, an instructional vision keeps everyone focused on the same objective, guides how translating ideas and practices into reality should happen, and ensures that each person’s effort contributes to the shared outcome. It defines what matters most for student learning, helps educators and leaders sift through competing tools, and keeps assessment practices in service of instruction rather than the other way around.

Without an instructional vision (and coherent action to support it), eight familiar threats creep in, as my colleagues Caroline Wylie and Carla Evans outlined in a recent blog. Balance isn’t just about fewer tests. It’s about aligning purpose, design, and use across these variables so assessments genuinely support teaching and learning.

The State’s Role: Convener, Not Just Standard-Setter

Another strong theme I took from RILS was the role of the state. Standards matter, but they aren’t enough. States can convene communities, elevate effective practices, and create conditions for local innovation to scale. Trust, however, remains a barrier. Schools don’t always trust districts, districts don’t always trust states, and states sometimes don’t trust schools. Technical alignment is important, but bridging these gaps in trust is equally critical if we want balanced systems to take root.

One concrete step forward is for states to open up their processes: sharing data transparently, inviting districts into decision-making earlier, and highlighting when district innovations are elevated to state policy. Visibility and shared credit go a long way toward rebuilding trust across levels of the system.

Lessons From the Field: The Power of Asking Why

The stories we heard during RILS reinforced this. One that struck me was the work my Center colleagues supported in the Katy Independent School District (ISD) in Texas. Leaders there asked three deceptively simple questions when evaluating their assessment system:

• Why are we giving the assessment?
• Who are the data for?
• What happens if we don’t give the assessment?

These questions cut through noise and revealed redundancies, helping them prioritize assessments that genuinely matter (although that last question raised some heart rates due to perceived ownership).

This spirit of interrogation, rather than compliance, feels like the real path toward balance. It also underscored that districts are not passive recipients of assessments from states or vendors; they are primary agents of change. Districts can and should demand more from their providers, insisting on tools and supports that align with their instructional vision and genuinely help educators do their work. When districts exercise this authority, they shift the market and create the conditions for balance to take hold.

The Final Hand‑Off: A Reflection

Leaving RILS, I was reminded that balance is less about perfect systems and more about purposeful conversations across the TOAs. The real work is bringing together those who hold different parts of the system—instruction, assessment, curriculum—and asking how their designs overlap in ways that support student growth.

We need to start with the right questions, not answers. And sometimes, as Katy ISD showed, three questions are enough to start building trust and nudging our systems closer to balance.

We must remember that districts are the engines of this work. They sit closest to schools and can demand more from providers so assessments and supports align with instructional vision and classroom realities. If districts lean into that role, they can accelerate change from the ground up, reinforcing the trust and coherence that balance requires. 

In the end, if TOAs are like runners in a race, then districts are the exchange zones—the places where handoffs can finally happen. When they embrace that role, districts turn parallel efforts into a coordinated relay, moving the whole system forward together.