April 2026 Partner Spotlight

In each newsletter, we will highlight one of the amazing partners that collaborates with the CCTM. This will be an opportunity to learn from our amazing partners, not only about effective and amazing teaching practices but also about what they offer to our math community as a whole.

This newsletter will spotlight Forefront Math! 

We are thrilled to spotlight a longtime CCTM friend David Woodward and Forefront Education. Forefront Education is doing transformative work in the world of K-12 learning, positioning itself at the cutting edge of coherence in education. By empowering educators with tools to analyze data from curriculum assessments and numeracy screeners, Forefront Education provides teachers with precise, actionable data that takes the guesswork out of supporting every student. We are so excited to share the work of Forefront as they lead the charge on making such a meaningful impact on educators and students alike

The Case for Instructionally Useful Assessments

It is my belief that equity in education is not possible without equity in instruction.  Quality teaching is central to all efforts to achieve excellent student learning outcomes.  So, when schools implement comprehensive assessment systems as part of their strategic plans, it is important to ask, what will be the impact on instruction?  In what ways will these assessments result in a net positive impact on instruction?

If quality instruction is a necessary element for realizing equity in education, assessments must support that effort.  Some assessments, when in the hands of a dedicated teacher, hold remarkable potential for good.  Few topics in education have consistently demonstrated positive impacts like formative assessment (Dylan Wiliam). According to the Eberly Center at Carnegie Mellon University, “The goal of formative assessment is to monitor student learning in order to provide ongoing feedback that can be used by instructors to improve their teaching.”

But not every assessment provides information that is useful enough to achieve the positive potential formative assessment has.  While state measures of student learning may be helpful for high level resource allocations, and to hold districts accountable to taxpayers, state tests are not, and should not be misconstrued as “instructionally useful.”  Nor do most purport to be.  But what about the other assessments?  

What makes an assessment instructionally useful?  Carla Evans and Scott Marion in their book, Understanding Instructionally Useful Assessment define it in this way.  “An instructionally useful assessment provides substantive insights about student learning strengths and needs relative to specific learning targets that can positively influence the interactions among the teacher, student, and the content.”  (Evans & Marion, 2024) While it is a high bar to set for the assessments that leaders mandate, isn’t it also a necessary and reasonable expectation to have?

Take, for example, interim and benchmark assessments.  These are often computer delivered, adaptive assessments that sample a broad swath of content.  While these measures may be useful for resource allocation and program evaluation, in what ways do they truly impact classrooms?

To start with, we have to consider that the time to administer these assessments subtracts from instructional time, so in order to have a net positive impact, the benefit added must outweigh the negative impacts of lost time.  And some assessments take up a whole lot of time. 

Often the primary purpose of these assessments is to sort kids into categories that simply confirm what teachers already know, and provide little to no additional information that is instructionally actionable.  Also  information from the reports may not align with the content being taught at the time, or be too broad in scope.  Seldom do they reveal what students actually know, as much as highlight what they don’t.

And so, while these assessments may be helpful, especially for leaders, for tracking progress and for holding people accountable, it is questionable whether the positive impact on instruction is enough to counterbalance the loss of instructional time and the budget commitment they demand.

Consistently excellent instruction is the goal.  How can assessment systems be implemented that contribute towards that goal? What would it take to work toward a system where almost every assessment has the potential to support teachers in making equitable instructional decisions?  I think the possibility exists.

The company I founded, Forefront Education, partners with schools and school districts to put meaningful, instructionally useful assessment results at the center of their systems. When the assessments that have the greatest impact on instruction are elevated to fuel collaborative work, professional learning, and structures that support students who need it most, districts gain efficiency, time, and financial resources. You can learn more about our work here (http://forefront.education/cctm), and look for Forefront at the CCTM, NCSM, and NCTM conferences this year.

Return to April 2026 CCTM Newsletter