Teacher Engagement With Embedded Classroom Assessments

A study of Chicago teachers’ curriculum implementation

This is the third in a series of posts by our 2025 summer interns, based on the projects they designed with their Center mentors. Jesse Eze, a doctoral student at the University of Delaware, worked with Associate Director Carla Evans and Senior Associate Erika Landl.

Chicago Public Schools (CPS) provides free, high-quality instructional materials to all PK-12 teachers and schools. The curriculum is called Skyline. When it designed and launched Skyline in 2019, CPS’s aim was to provide all students with a high-quality, standards-aligned, and culturally responsive curriculum. A key part of this effort involves curriculum-embedded assessments—interim, unit, and lesson-level tests—designed to support instructional pacing and planning. 

But how much are these assessments being used in CPS classrooms? And what can usage patterns tell us about the rollout of a district-wide curriculum that is freely provided, but not mandated? As part of my internship, I designed a study to answer these questions:

1. What are the usage profiles of CPS teachers engaging with different types of Skyline assessments in 2024–25, and how do these profiles vary by content area, grade level, school, and network (groups of schools)?
2. How does the degree of assessment use vary by school, network affiliation, and compare to the previous school year?

My analysis looked at teacher and school engagement with Skyline assessments during the 2024–2025 school year. Drawing on administrative data from CPS, we examined what kinds of assessments were being used (lesson, unit, interim), how often, and by whom. Utilization data captured assessments administered or scored through the district’s digital assessment platform, likely undercounting performance-based assessments or those administered on paper—an important caveat for interpretation of the findings. 

Based on the data available, we classified teachers into five distinct usage profiles—Fear of Missing Out (FOMO), Minimal, Moderate, Power, and Continuous—to offer a clearer lens into the depth of implementation. Apart from the FOMO teachers, the teachers we studied were in schools that self-reported adoption of the Skyline curriculum at some level, which varied from a single teacher in smaller schools to adoption across content areas and grade bands.

●  FOMO Users: Teachers in schools that didn’t adopt Skyline but still administered at least one Skyline assessment, regardless of type or frequency.

●  Minimal Users: Teachers in Skyline-adopting schools who administered at least one assessment type per quarter but did not access reports.

●  Moderate Users: Teachers who administered both unit and lesson assessments each quarter and accessed at least one report, though not necessarily the standard- and item-level reports suggested by the district.

●  Power Users: Teachers who administered all three assessment types and accessed standard- and item-level reports.

●  Continuous Users: Teachers who met the Power User criteria in all four quarters.

Below are three key findings from the study that are intended to support CPS’s continuous improvement efforts.

Finding 1: Assessment Usage Increased

Compared to 2023-2024, Skyline assessment usage in 2024-2025 increased in almost every category. More teachers administered unit and lesson assessments and accessed reports overall. School participation also grew, particularly for unit assessments, which jumped from use in 68% of schools to nearly 86% of Skyline-adopting schools.

Still, not every category saw increased utilization. The implementation of Skyline interim assessments dropped slightly at the school level, and access to more fine-grained reports (known as standard- and item-level reports) declined. Since this research study was purely descriptive, it does not provide insight as to why these patterns emerged, but it does provide data points that CPS leadership can use within follow-up discussions and analyses.

Finding 2: Assessment Usage Varied Widely by Content Area, Grade Level and Quarter

While overall Skyline assessment usage improved, it wasn’t evenly distributed. Most assessments were administered in English/language arts and math, particularly in Grades 3–8, though certain networks, and some schools within networks, drove most of the activity. Assessments in content areas like science and social science were not given as frequently. 

High school engagement was especially low, with very little participation in Grades 9–12 across all content areas. The second quarter emerged as the peak period for assessment activity. These variations suggest that implementation may be more consistent in certain contexts but not yet embedded across the full academic year.

Finding 3: Most Teachers Used the System—But Minimally

The vast majority of teachers fell into the “Minimal User” category. These educators administered at least one type of assessment each quarter but didn’t consistently combine different types or use reports in a robust way. Moderate and Power users—those who combined assessment types and engaged with reporting—were far less common. Continuous Users, who sustained deep engagement across all four quarters, were exceedingly rare. 

What Does It All Mean?

Together, these findings point to both progress and growing pains. On the one hand, assessment usage is expanding—more schools and teachers are participating, and more data is being accessed. On the other hand, assessment usage is at a Minimal Level. Many teachers are giving at least one lesson, unit, or interim assessment without using the full range of tools available.

The five usage profiles help surface where different kinds of support may be needed. For example, schools with many Minimal users might benefit from guidance on the type of instructionally valuable information different assessments can provide. Teachers who give tests but don’t access standards- or item-level reports may need targeted training to support data analysis and move toward Power usage. And schools with no users at all could be supported with case studies or peer learning from higher-usage sites.

Why Does it Matter?

This study offers a rare system-level view of how optional curriculum-embedded assessments are being used in a large urban district. Rather than focusing on test scores or outcomes, it examines patterns of participation, depth of engagement, and variation across content areas, grade bands, schools, and networks. In doing so, it brings attention to the often-overlooked question of how teachers are implementing the curriculum with its embedded assessments. 

With a better understanding of the fidelity of HQIM implementation and patterns of curriculum-embedded assessment use, researchers can then focus on certain types of teachers, schools, or networks for follow-up research on barriers/facilitators and relationships to student outcomes.