Changing Assessments Requires Clarity: Why Instructional Next Steps Matter

As a school administrator for 40 years, I’ve led districtwide change more times than I can count: new curricula, new initiatives, new assessments. If I’ve learned anything across four decades in schools, it’s that change is never easy.

But change is especially hard when it feels like the change was decided by those who don’t have to implement it. So, if you’re hesitating to change assessments because it feels disruptive, or because you’re thinking, “We’ve already got something that works well enough,” I get it. I’ve been in those meetings. I’ve sat with principals and teacher leaders, listened to legitimate concerns, and watched how assessment switches can either build momentum or create exhaustion.

If you’re considering switching, remember that it’s a process, not an event. But when the new assessment improves teaching and learning, it’s always worth it. 

The Real Purpose of Assessment: Better Instruction, Faster

The primary goal of assessing reading and math skills is to inform more effective teaching. Not to generate reports. Not to fill dashboards. Not to create data for data’s sake. Teachers rightfully want to assess less and teach more. That’s why the most important question isn’t “What score did students get?” It’s: “What do I do next with these students?” If an assessment can’t clearly answer that question, it’s not worth switching.

What I Saw with “Mix-and-Match” Systems

In many districts, the assessment landscape ends up looking like a patchwork quilt. Maybe you screen with one tool, progress monitor with another, and then try to align instruction somewhere else. I’ve lived that.

Tools like MAP® Growth™, Star Assessments®, or other screeners can tell you where a student is in relation to how other students performed. But too often, they leave teachers stuck in the middle, doing what I call “data translation”:

• Translating scores into specific skills
• Translating skill gaps into instructional groups
• Translating those groups into lesson plans
• And then hunting down resources to address what they need

That burden lands mostly on teachers who are already juggling everything else.

Assessment Alone Doesn’t Move Learning

Assessment has zero impact on learning if instruction doesn’t change. The late Dr. Carol McDonald Connor, a pioneer in Individualizing Student Instruction (ISI), showed that growth depends on matching instruction to student needs—what her work described as instruction-by-student characteristic dependence.

• The “One-Size-Fits-None” Plateau
  If students with strong foundational skills sit through basic instruction they’ve already mastered, growth slows. If students with gaps are pushed forward without the support they need, gaps widen. The class average may not look alarming, but individual growth flattens.
• Time Gets Used Inefficiently
  Connor’s work highlighted that instructional minutes have “value.” If we don’t adjust instruction based on screening and progress monitoring data, we often default to whole-group patterns that don’t fit the actual learning needs in front of us.
• Achievement Gaps Widen
  Students who need more explicit, teacher-led foundational instruction don’t catch up through generic practice. If the data doesn’t translate into targeted support such as small groups, increased frequency, and explicit instruction, the gap grows over the year.

The bottom line is that giving a screening test without adjusting instruction is like diagnosing a patient and withholding the medicine.

Why Do Educators Resist Changing Assessments?

Because they’ve been through change that wasn’t handled well. In my experience, resistance usually comes from one (or more) of these realities:

• No clear rationale: “Why are we doing this?”
• No clear benefits: “How does this help teaching?”
• No clear support: “Who’s helping us learn the new system?”
• Fear of losing historical data: “How will we access the data we need?”
• Change fatigue: “We just changed something last year.”

Those concerns are valid. When leaders are not transparent, people understandably brace for impact. But when they treat change like a process, with a rationale, a plan, and support, educators are much more willing to engage.

Start with the “Why,” Then Build the Pathway

Based on my experience, here’s an approach that gets the most buy-in and the least resistance:

1. Look Honestly at Outcomes
   Ask your team:
   • Did our current assessment approach lead to stronger achievement?
   • Did it lead to clearer instructional decisions?
   • Did it reduce workload?
   • If the answer is “not really,” then it’s responsible to consider a change.
2. Build Buy-In through Collaboration
   Don’t frame the transition as, “Here’s what we’re doing now.” Instead, try, “Here’s what we’re trying to accomplish together.” Teachers resist less when they understand the rationale and feel supported, not commanded.
3. Implement Step by Step
   A switch doesn’t have to be chaotic and overwhelming. It can be strategically staged:
   • Onboarding and training
   • Data conversations focused on instruction, not compliance
   • Support for principals on how to lead with the data
   • A plan for historical data concerns and communication
   When educators can see the blueprint, they breathe easier.

Ensuring Educator Satisfaction

It’s important for district leaders to check in with their educators throughout transitions. But when educators make the switch to i-Ready, they discover it’s worth it. In a recent survey, 83% of educators said they were just as satisfied or more satisfied with i-Ready than with their previous assessment.* This aligns with what I saw in districts: once teachers experience fewer “translation steps” between results and instruction, confidence grows.

The Goal Isn’t a New Test, It’s Better Next Steps

Here’s what I know after 40 years:

• Teachers don’t fear change as much as they fear change without purpose.
• Students don’t benefit from data unless it translates to instruction.

If you’re going to assess in fall, winter, and spring, you deserve more than three score reports. You deserve a system that supports the next 12 weeks of teaching. That’s why I believe i-Ready is worth the switch: because it connects reading and math assessment to what happens next in instruction—quickly, clearly, and in one place. When we make it easier for teachers to act on what students need, we give families what they want most: a brighter future for their children.

Explore how i-Ready supports districts through assessment transitions.

More Resources for You:
What Really Matters When Choosing an Assessment
Why Experts Say Assessment Closely Tied to Instruction Is What Students Need
Interim Assessments: Striking the Balance between Insight and Instruction
Why Pairing Assessment and Instruction from Different Companies Generally Doesn’t Work Well

*Source: i-Ready-sponsored online survey conducted in January 2025 among a national sample of licensed i-Ready educators (i.e., teachers and school/district administrators). Results reflect responses from 325 educators in their first two years of i-Ready use who previously used MAP Growth or Renaissance Star and answered the question: “Compared to the benchmark assessment you used previously (e.g., MAP Growth or Renaissance Star), how satisfied are you with i-Ready for benchmark assessment?”

NWEA®, MAP®, and RIT® are registered trademarks, and MAP Growth™ is a trademark, of NWEA in the United States and other countries.
Star Assessments® is a trademark of Renaissance Learning, Inc., and its subsidiaries.