Understanding the Role of State Assessment Data vs. School-Based Formative Data

Jan 15, 2025 |

In the education landscape, the distinction between state-level assessment data and school-based formative data is essential for understanding student performance and guiding improvement efforts. State-level data, like the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), serves a very different function than school-based formative assessments such as IREADY, NWEA, or unit tests.

State-Level Data: A System-Wide Overview

State-level assessments like the MAP are designed to provide a broad overview of student performance across an entire state or region. These assessments are not meant to serve as tools for continuous improvement within individual classrooms or schools, unlike formative assessments that provide real-time feedback. Instead, MAP data functions more like a “dipstick” (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2020), offering school boards and policymakers a way to examine overall system performance and demographic trends. It allows for “apples to apples” comparisons across different districts, giving educators and stakeholders insight into how students in various regions are performing on a large scale.

The primary role of state assessments like the MAP is to assess the proficiency of students on a larger scale, showing how well systems are meeting statewide educational standards over time (Matsumura et al., 2008). These assessments are critical for understanding disparities in achievement, especially across different demographic groups. Historical context, such as the landmark civil rights lawsuit involving the NAACP and the Urban League, emphasizes the need for transparency in educational data to help identify and address inequities (Gage & Wilson, 2015).

School-Based Formative Data: Continuous Improvement at the Local Level

In contrast, formative assessments like IREADY or NWEA are intended to guide immediate instructional adjustments and support continuous improvement within a classroom or school. These assessments are used regularly by educators to track students’ progress, adjust teaching methods, and provide targeted interventions to meet individual needs (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). High-performing school systems already integrate these tools to drive improvement by offering a data-driven approach to teaching and learning. They allow teachers to monitor progress at the individual student level, which is a far more immediate and nuanced feedback mechanism than state-level assessments (Black & Wiliam, 1998).

While formative assessments provide crucial insights into individual student growth, they are often less useful for comparing performance across school systems. Unlike the MAP, which offers standardized data that can be compared across regions, formative assessments are typically localized and tailored to specific student needs, making them unsuitable for system-wide comparisons.

Bridging the Gap: The Importance of Both

While state assessments like the MAP provide a necessary snapshot of system-wide performance, they do not serve as tools for ongoing instructional feedback within classrooms. School systems that are focused on continuous improvement need both types of data: state-level assessments to track long-term progress and formative assessments to inform day-to-day instructional strategies.

In conclusion, using the right tool for the right purpose is critical. State assessments are indispensable for understanding systemic trends and disparities in educational achievement, but they cannot replace the need for real-time formative assessments that drive improvement within schools. As educational systems continue to evolve, leveraging both forms of data—state-level and formative—will ensure that every student is given the tools they need to succeed academically and in life.pective purposes in mind.

Cited Sources:

  • National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2020). NAEP 2020 report card. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov
  • Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H. E., & Slater, S. (2008). The role of data in improving education: Lessons from the field. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(10).
  • Gage, N. L., & Wilson, M. (2015). The role of educational data in identifying and addressing disparities. Journal of Educational Measurement, 52(3), 249-269.
  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Educational Psychology, 25(2), 1-49.

About the Author

Share This