Building With Benchmarks: The Role of the District in Philadelphia's Benchmark Assessment System

In recent years, as the push for increased achievement has intensified, districts are increasingly turning to “interim assessments” to track students’ progress at regular intervals throughout the year. While some districts are writing their own benchmark assessments, others are turning to the significant for-profit industry that is springing up to sell districts these assessments and the technology needed to administer and score them and analyze results (Burch, 2005). More and more districts are investing in expensive data management systems designed to help teachers, principals, and district leaders make sense of student data, identify areas of strength and weakness, identify instructional strategies for targeted students, and much more (Olson, 2005).

These new assessments, often called “benchmark assessments,” are given multiple times a year in various subjects. According to a 2005 article in Education Week, 7 of 10 superintendents surveyed give district-wide tests, and another 10% said that they planned to give such tests in the following year (Olson, 2005). Most of these tests are designed to predict students’ performance on end-of-the-year state exams that serve as an important measure in determining whether a school makes its Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) target. However, there are some districts that have implemented interim assessments that are more closely aligned to a district-wide curriculum or district standards and have been designed for the purpose of providing educators with formative information about students’ mastery of the curriculum (Olson, 2005).

However, we know little about how school-based educators use results from benchmarks to assess student understanding and modify academic programs, or about the conditions that support their ability to use such information. Indeed, there is considerable debate in both the policy and education communities about whether benchmark assessments can be used formatively; that is, to inform and direct teachers’ instruction on a regular basis. We also know little about the kinds of policies and supports that might facilitate more formative use of these kinds of assessments.

1014_aera2008-goertz-lawrence-buckley-christman.pdf