Collaborative Common Assessments

Cassandra Erkens

Chapter 1. Doing Extraordinary Things

Collaborative Common Assessments in Education

Many common assessments in schools fail to provide meaningful insights, often

generating data without teacher or student involvement. Effective collaborative
common assessments, however, engage teachers in discussions that improve both
student achievement and professional practice.

What Are Collaborative Common Assessments

These assessments are given at the same time by teachers who share students or
standards. Formative assessments, which allow for real-time adjustments, are most
effective. The key is involving both teachers and students in designing, delivering, and
analyzing the assessments.

The Collaborative Common Assessment Process

Collaborative assessments require ongoing teamwork to plan, monitor, and adjust

throughout the process. Teams meet regularly to analyze results, refine strategies, and
ensure consistency across classrooms while allowing flexibility in teaching.

The Data Phase

The data phase is crucial for improving instruction. By analyzing common assessment
results, teams can adjust curriculum and teaching methods to better meet student
needs. The comparative data from collaborative assessments is more useful for
program improvement than individual classroom assessments.

The Re-Engagement Process

If the assessment process is successful, most students won’t need additional

instruction. However, when necessary, the re-engagement phase helps target support
based on assessment results.

Collaborative School Improvement

Collaborative common assessments help schools implement new initiatives and

monitor progress. They provide valuable data that drive system improvements and
ensure that new standards or strategies are effectively applied. By focusing on
meaningful assessment, schools can bridge the gap between classroom practice and
leadership, improving teaching and learning.
Chapter 2. Embedding Collaborative Common Assessments in a Balanced
Assessment System

Assessment Architects in Education

Assessment is more than just creating and scoring tests—it's a system that requires
careful planning and execution. Educators should act as "assessment architects,"
designing assessments, providing feedback, and continuously improving the learning
process. Too often, assessments are created last-minute, but they should lead
curriculum and instructional planning to ensure meaningful outcomes.

Building an Assessment System

Teachers must design a balanced system of assessments that includes classroom tests,
interim assessments, and end-of-year evaluations. These assessments help monitor
student progress, identify issues, and adjust instruction to improve learning.

Collaborative Common Assessments

Collaborative assessments should prepare students for larger assessments while

allowing teams to reflect on and improve instruction. The focus should be on creating
rigorous, engaging assessments that align with educational goals and use larger
assessments for validation.

Large-Scale Assessments

End-of-year exams measure overall achievement and ensure students meet standards.
However, internal data should guide instructional decisions and improve learning for
all students.

Shallow vs. Deep Testing

Tests should go beyond basic knowledge and require students to apply what they’ve
learned in meaningful ways. Summative assessments should challenge students to
think critically and use 21st-century skills.

Norm-Referenced Assessments

Norm-referenced tests compare students to each other, which is problematic in

standards-based education. Instead, assessments should measure mastery of standards,
not rank students.

High-Stakes and Medium-Scale Assessments

High-stakes assessments, which have significant consequences, aren’t ideal for
compulsory education. Interim assessments monitor progress and help ensure students
are ready for larger tests.

Ongoing Professional Development

A strong assessment system requires continual professional development for teachers.

Districts should use assessment data to identify areas for improvement and support
teachers in building assessment literacy.

Chapter 3. Working Together for a Common Purpose

What Are Common Assessments?

Common assessments are standardized tests administered at the same time to measure
student achievement. They don't always have to be identical; the key is aligning them
with specific standards. Teachers in small teams or those without grade-level partners
can still collaborate on these assessments, focusing on student learning.

Whole-School Collaboration
At Cooper High School, teachers across subjects focused on three literacy skills:
identifying main ideas, using textual evidence, and critiquing text. They committed to
teaching and assessing these skills quarterly. This whole-school effort aimed to
improve reading proficiency, even in subjects like music and woodworking.

Vertical Alignment
Vertical alignment ensures that skills are assessed consistently across grade levels. At
Innovation Elementary, teachers focused on improving reading by teaching students to
make text connections (text-to-self, text-to-world, and text-to-text). They developed a
shared rubric for this skill to be used across grade levels, subjects, and text types.

Horizontal Alignment
Horizontal alignment involves coordinating assessments across subjects and grade
levels. Teams create consistent rubrics to assess key skills. By developing assessment
blueprints, teachers ensure rigor and consistency, whether using performance tasks or
traditional tests.

Singletons: Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration

At Independence Elementary, the PE teacher collaborated with classroom teachers by
integrating math facts and vocabulary into PE lessons. Students created chants to
reinforce academic content, showing how cross-disciplinary collaboration can
enhance student learning.

Modified Assessments
Common assessments can be adapted for students with disabilities or English learners.
Teachers must understand the learning targets before making modifications, ensuring
assessments still measure understanding. For example, simplifying language on a
math test can help EL students demonstrate their math skills without language
barriers.

In short, collaborative common assessments—whether vertically or horizontally

aligned—create a unified, standards-based approach to monitoring and improving
student learning across subjects and grade levels.

Chapter 4: Preparing the Foundation for Collaborative Common Assessments

Establishing Team Norms

Collaborative common assessments require trust, which must be built intentionally.
Teams should establish norms that go beyond basic professional courtesies, fostering a
safe space for data discussions and holding each other accountable for effectiveness.

Identifying Essential Learning

Focus on priority standards that are critical for student success. Teams should
prioritize these standards, plan when and how to teach and assess them, and ensure
alignment with the cognitive complexity of external assessments, like state tests.

Developing Shared Knowledge

Teams break down priority standards into specific learning targets. These can be
strategic (generalizable) or specific (context-dependent). Aligning on these targets
ensures consistency in teaching and assessment across the team.

Examining Data and Setting SMART Goals

Data is essential for identifying student needs and setting SMART goals. These goals
guide the team's focus and provide measurable targets, such as raising math
proficiency from 64% to 78% by year-end. Ongoing data reviews help teams stay on
track.

Mapping Targets and Assessments

An assessment map outlines how and when learning targets will be assessed. It
ensures that key learning goals are covered and provides a clear instructional pathway
for teachers and students.

Monitoring Progress
Teams must regularly review data from assessments to track progress. Without this,
teams risk losing focus or missing goals. Regular checks, like tracking comprehension
and fluency, help ensure progress toward meeting goals, such as 85% proficiency in
reading by year’s end.

Chapter 5. Designing Collaborative Common Assessments

Mastering the Collaborative Design Process

The design phase of collaborative common assessments is essential for improving
assessment literacy, clarity, and instructional flexibility. Research shows that teachers
often lack expertise in creating and interpreting assessments. By working together to
design assessments, teams can better align instruction, prioritize key concepts, and
increase rigor. Skipping this phase or using pre-made assessments limits these
benefits.

Pre-Instruction Design
Teams should design assessments before instruction begins to ensure smooth
implementation. Designing during or after instruction disrupts the process, leading to
flawed results and extra work. Pre-planned design ensures focus and alignment.

Design Protocols
While using pre-existing assessments may seem easier, co-creating assessments
fosters shared understanding and alignment. Teams can use these four protocols:

1. Analyze existing assessments and identify learning targets.

2. Divide sections among team members.
3. Develop questions for each target.
4. Design assessments individually, then review for alignment and rigor.

Design Considerations
Collaborative assessments should focus on key concepts and 21st-century skills. Move
beyond selected-response formats to include constructed-response and performance
assessments for deeper learning. Teams should:

● Align assessments with learning targets.

● Simulate real-world challenges.
● Minimize bias and review in advance.

Assessment Methods
Use a mix of selected-response, constructed-response, and performance assessments.
While selected-response is efficient, it may not capture the depth of student
understanding. Constructed-response items provide more insight into student
comprehension.

Building Assessment Literacy

Teachers must develop their own assessment literacy, understanding how to assess
both the content and the method. Collaborative design helps teams improve their
assessments and ensures more accurate evaluations of student mastery.

Chapter 6. Delivering New Approaches to Assessment

Collaborative Common Formative Assessments

Collaborative common formative assessments play a key role throughout instruction,
helping teachers identify challenges early and adapt instruction in real-time. Frequent,
small assessments reduce the need for re-engagement after summative assessments.
Using Assessments to Inform Teaching
Common assessments should not limit teacher creativity. Effective teaching requires
flexibility and responsiveness. As Robert Marzano notes, teachers must adapt
strategies to their students and content. Collaborative assessments help teachers refine
their approaches through feedback and discussions.

Formative Assessment in Action

Formative assessments guide instruction by tracking student progress. For example,
when a third-grade team discovered one teacher’s success with inferences, they
collaborated to identify effective strategies, ensuring students were prepared for the
final summative assessment.

(Re)Defining Assessment
Assessment is a process that involves design, delivery, analysis, and response, aimed
at supporting student learning. Teachers should use assessments to help students
understand their learning needs and guide them toward mastery.

Summative vs. Formative Assessment

Summative assessments measure student mastery after instruction, but formative
assessments are essential for preparing students for these assessments. They help
teachers adjust instruction and ensure students are ready to demonstrate their learning.

Building a Balanced Assessment System

Formative and summative assessments work together. When formative assessments
are effective, students walk into summative assessments with confidence, making
them a celebration of progress rather than a surprise.

Frequent Formatives in Practice

Using small, frequent formative assessments throughout a unit helps teachers track
progress and provide targeted support. High school algebra teachers used quizzes to
monitor progress and encourage student self-reflection.

Integrated Interventions
Some teams use formative assessments to guide interventions before the summative
assessment. After an initial assessment, teachers collaborate to identify areas of need,
regroup students, and re-teach concepts, ensuring mastery before reassessment.

Action Research in Practice

A fifth-grade team noticed an achievement gap among African American and
Hispanic male students in math. Through action research and student feedback, they
discovered students felt unsafe in math class, prompting changes in teaching strategies
and classroom management.

Conclusion
Collaborative formative assessments are vital for adapting instruction, improving
student learning, and ensuring all students succeed. By integrating them into daily
practice, teachers can better support students and guide them toward
Chapter 7. Examining Data to Improve Learning

The Power of Collaborative Data Conversations

Collaborative common assessments should drive improvement in instruction. If they
aren't directly improving teaching, they aren't working. Data should provide clear next
steps for both teachers and students. In many cases, however, data conversations are
formalities where learners are grouped for other experts to "fix" their issues, rather
than helping teachers improve their own practice. When teams miss the opportunity to
reflect on their own teaching, the purpose of professional learning communities
(PLCs) is lost. True learning teams use data to inform their decisions, identify
strengths and growth opportunities, and collaboratively enhance their practice.

The Right Kind of Data Conversations

Data meetings should be energizing, not mechanical. Teams need to approach data
with purpose:

1. Clear norms to manage emotions

2. A protocol for focused, quick analysis
3. Organized data by teacher, student, and target
4. Student work for deeper insights into errors.
Effective teams are "hungry" for data that drives improvement, focusing not
only on successes but on areas of student struggle that require targeted
interventions.

Making Decisions Based on Data

Reteaching isn’t always the answer when students struggle with a target. Teachers
should consider if the missed target will affect future learning or if it can be revisited
in later units. New standards often allow for practice across multiple units, so teams
can track progress over time, reducing the need for immediate intervention. If
intervention is necessary, teachers can address it promptly; otherwise, they can plan to
revisit the concept later.

Going Beyond Percentages

Data, such as percentages or rubric scores, should not be used as the sole basis for
decisions. They provide a starting point for deeper exploration. Teams must examine
data at a granular level—by target, question, or task—and review student artifacts to
understand the specific errors. This helps identify the root cause of misconceptions
and determine the appropriate instructional response.

Individualizing Student Needs

By organizing data by target and student, teams can uncover individual struggles that
may be hidden by class averages. For example, a student with an overall score of 80%
may still be struggling with specific targets. Teachers must dig deeper to identify
which concepts were misunderstood and provide focused feedback and interventions,
rather than reteaching the entire unit.
Evidence and Artifacts
Evidence comes from assessing student work and teacher observations, offering
deeper insight into learning needs. Teams should use artifacts to confirm data findings
and explore students’ errors. Protocols like calibrating scoring, analyzing errors, and
refining assessments ensure consistency in evaluating student work, which helps
generate meaningful data.

Common Data Practices

Teams must calibrate their scoring practices to ensure consistent data from common
assessments. Inconsistent scoring can lead to misleading data. Using rubrics or
performance assessments requires clear guidelines to maintain fairness and accuracy
in scoring. Additionally, teams should review artifacts collaboratively, using blind
scoring or other methods to reduce bias and ensure objectivity.

Mining Artifacts for Deeper Insight

Teams should avoid prescoring student work, as it can introduce bias and limit
learning discussions. By reviewing artifacts anonymously and using blind scoring,
teams increase objectivity and allow for richer, more productive conversations. When
teams engage in collaborative scoring, they can better diagnose learning needs, create
focused interventions, and improve their teaching practice.

Conclusion
Data conversations should be transformative, pushing both teachers and students
toward growth. By using collaborative common assessments and analyzing data
meaningfully, teams create a dynamic, reflective learning environment that supports
ongoing improvement and student success. Each data session should inspire teachers
to refine their practice and deepen their commitment to student learning.

Chapter 8. Responding With Instructional Agility

The passage discusses the importance of collaborative common assessments in

improving teaching and learning. Here are the key points:

1. Purpose of Assessments: Assessments should diagnose learning gaps and

guide next steps for both students and teachers. They should not just collect
data for its own sake but inform instructional decisions, addressing questions
like: "What will we do for students who haven't mastered the material?" and
"What will we do for those who already have?"
2. Program Improvement: Teams should use assessment data to make decisions
about curriculum and instruction, improving both the overall program and
individual teaching strategies. This process must be data-driven, avoiding
decisions based on opinion or assumptions.
3. Curriculum Flexibility: Teachers should modify curricula to better meet
students’ needs, incorporating diverse resources (e.g., digital tools, primary
sources) and adapting materials based on data.
 4. Data Empowerment: Intervention specialists and teams should track and
analyze data, using it to make informed decisions about interventions and
instructional strategies. This data can be used to identify common errors and
refine teaching methods.
5. Assessment Design: Poor student performance often stems from flaws in the
assessment itself, not just the curriculum or teaching. Assessments should be
diagnostic, helping teachers understand where students are struggling and how
to address it.
6. Differentiation: Differentiated instruction should focus on how to teach,
ensuring all students can access and succeed with the curriculum. It’s about
providing tailored support based on student needs.
7. Support for Struggling Learners: When students don’t meet learning goals,
teams should intervene with targeted support and reteaching. Policies like
second-chance testing can be misused, so teachers should ensure clear
expectations and meaningful formative assessments.
8. Coaching and Reteaching: For students making errors, teachers should
encourage self-assessment and error analysis. More significant gaps require
reteaching and focused intervention.
9. Advancing Learning: Moving forward with the curriculum shouldn’t be based
solely on percentages of students mastering content. Teachers must consider all
learners’ needs, and motivation plays a key role in engagement.
10. Feedback from Learners: Schools should gather student feedback to
assess and improve teaching practices, linking it to school improvement goals.

Key Takeaway: The focus should be on using assessment data to inform instruction,
collaborating to make improvements, and creating a flexible, responsive learning
environment that meets all students’ needs.