8.0 What is Assessment?

Most of us come to teacher education with long histories of being assessed as students. We remember quizzes that made us nervous, projects we were proud of, timed tests that felt high-stakes, or participation points that never seemed fair. These experiences shape how we think about assessment—sometimes without us even realizing it.

In this chapter, we take a step back to rethink assessment through a more intentional and equitable lens. Assessment is the process of gathering evidence of student learning in order to understand what students know, what they can do, and what support they need next. It is not simply grading or ranking; it is a continuous dialogue between teaching and learning. This definition will guide the rest of the chapter as we explore how assessment can be meaningful, culturally responsive, and supportive of every learner’s growth.

What is the Purpose of Assessment?

The purpose of assessment in schools goes beyond measuring learning—it is fundamentally about using information to improve teaching and support students. Assessment helps teachers determine where students are in their learning, what progress they are making, and how instruction can be adjusted to meet their needs. It also provides insights into the effectiveness of teaching strategies, classroom supports, and curriculum design.

For external stakeholders—such as school boards, administrators, and families—assessment also serves an accountability function, offering assurance that schools are providing high-quality educational opportunities.

Assessment is often closely tied to grading, which influences students’ academic and professional pathways. For many years, traditional grading practices were widely accepted and rarely questioned. Today, however, educators are increasingly examining grading and testing systems for fairness, transparency, and equity. This shift reflects a growing recognition that assessment practices can either reinforce or disrupt inequities within the educational system.

8.1 Historical Context

Historically, unfair and discriminatory bias in assessment practices have been  perpetuated over time, stemming from cultural, social, or systemic biases. The US educational system continues to operate within the legacy of these influences,  and learning assessments are naturally shaped by the same forces. These biases have disproportionately disadvantaged certain groups of individuals based due to issues such as race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, or cultural background. Because educational assessments have often reflected the dominant cultural norms and values of the society in which they were created, this has led to unequal opportunities and outcomes for marginalized groups.

Language barriers, biased questions, and culturally unfamiliar content, for example, have unfairly disadvantaged students from non-dominant backgrounds. Addressing historical bias requires a critical examination of assessment tools, content, and methodologies to ensure they are inclusive, culturally sensitive, and reflective of diverse perspectives. By acknowledging and rectifying these historical biases in assessment, educational institutions can strive for greater equity and provide a more accurate reflection of students’ true capabilities and potential. What follows are just a couple of  historical examples that have shaped and influenced how educators have assessed and tested students in U.S. schools.

The Eugenics Movement: Intelligence Testing and Categorization

In the U.S., in order to justify the practice of  enslaving human beings, a form of racism emerged in the 1800’s known as  scientific racism. Scientific racism attempted to justify the superiority of the White race by relying on pseudoscience claims. This racist ideology found a vehicle in the Eugenics movement, which encompassed beliefs and practices designed to “improve” the genetic quality of the human population.

Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities and received funding from many sources. With the introduction of genetics, Eugenics became associated with genetic determinism – the belief that human character and intelligence are largely, if not entirely determined by genes and unaffected by education or living conditions. Organizations were formed to win public support and sway opinion towards Eugenic values.

At the beginning of the 1900s, educational scholars and psychologists began exploring ideas around “natural and genetically based” intelligence. Bringing with them preconceived notions of racial and ethnic superiority, many of these early researchers devised intelligence tests that reinforced existing social hierarchies, creating self-fulfilling prophecies. A clear example of this was the work of Carl Brigham, a prominent eugenicist whose research directly shaped the early versions of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Brigham argued—falsely and harmfully—that immigrants and Black students were intellectually inferior, and he designed testing structures that reflected these racial assumptions. Some early SAT questions required familiarity with culturally specific vocabulary, experiences, or social norms accessible primarily to affluent White students. For example, items asked students to define terms such as regatta, oarsman, or banal, privileging test-takers whose backgrounds aligned with elite White culture.

The legacy of this systemic bias—and its implied White superiority—persists today through certain uses of IQ testing and standardized assessments, including college entrance exams, as discussed in Chapter 2. As the NEA notes, standardized testing in the United States grew out of a broader eugenics movement that sought to sort, rank, and limit educational opportunity based on race, ethnicity, class, and perceived intelligence. Understanding these origins helps us critically examine why these assessments are not neutral tools, and how they continue to shape students’ educational pathways.

Video 8.1

 QR -Video 8.1

Sputnik: Cold War Fears

The headlines on October 4, 1957 revealed that the Soviet Union had successfully launched Sputnik 1, the first man-made satellite. This event single-handedly launched America into a decades long endeavor to not only compete in the space program, but to evaluate and launch a new and purportedly improved educational system that would afford its students a curriculum of rigor, especially in the realms of mathematics and science. It would, presumably, prepare U.S. students to compete with other nations.

This moment also marked a pivotal reversal of the progressive educational philosophy—or progressivism, as introduced in Chapter 3—that had shaped much of U.S. schooling during the 1950s. Progressive education emphasized student-centered learning, experiential activities, and the idea that schools should prepare young people for democratic participation. In contrast, proponents of a more rigorous, academically focused curriculum argued that U.S. education had become “soft,” relied too heavily on vocational training, and failed to train teachers effectively (Watters, 2015).

One prominent critic, historian Arthur Bestor, author of Educational Wastelands (1953) and The Restoration of Learning (1956), wrote a Life magazine article titled “What Went Wrong with U.S. Schools?” in which he compared American schools unfavorably to the Soviet achievement, contending that U.S. students were simply unprepared (Bestor, 1953).

These series of events set the stage for the educational reform measures of the next few decades in U.S. public schools, a period marked by the need for rigor, accountability and competitive edge within the global sphere. Nearly two decades later, the historic report, A Nation at Risk (April 1983), would catapult a nation toward an increased urgency for rigor and competency. There was a sense that our very future as a world power hinged upon the success of our schools. Critics of progressive education, in particular, took aim at the U.S. public school system. Their fears would cause a significant shift in the approach to US schools, bringing  business and governmental leaders to the table for the next few decades with heightened expectations for assessing the progress of children in US schools.

The emerging emphasis was on summative  assessment, particularly through standardized testing. The stakes became increasingly high for schools, communities and students. As U.S. students continued to underperform compared to peers in other industrialized countries, policymakers shifted toward a great concentration on high-stakes testing as a means to drive improvement. Unfortunately, this emphasis on high-stakes testing has not yielded an increase in scores (Michael Hout, 2012).

8.2 Global Assessment

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a large-scale international assessment developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Administered every three years, it is designed to compare the academic performance of 15-year-olds across participating countries. PISA is often used as a global benchmark because it aims to measure how well students can apply their knowledge of reading, mathematics, and science to real-world problems—not just recall facts. However, it is important to note what PISA does not measure: it does not assess creativity, collaboration, social-emotional skills, cultural knowledge, multilingual competencies, or many other forms of learning valued in diverse educational contexts. Because the OECD designs the assessment, its priorities reflect Western economic and cultural perspectives, which influences what is considered “important” knowledge on a global scale.

According to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), U.S. students earned an average Reading Literacy score of 497, while students in Singapore earned the highest average, 535. Students in Lebanon and Kosovo tied for the lowest average score of 347, placing U.S. students in the average range for reading (Reading Literacy: Average Scores, 2015).

In Mathematics Literacy, U.S. students earned an average of 470 compared to 564 in Singapore, which rated the highest, and 328 in the Dominican Republic, which rated the lowest. This places students from the United States below average in mathematics performance(Mathematics Literacy: Average Scores, 2015).

Although students in the United States have demonstrated an interest and positive attitude toward science, the data reveals a discrepancy between attitude and performance, with US students scoring at an average of 496, compared to 556 in Singapore, and 332 in the Dominican Republic.

8.3 High Stakes Testing and Accountability

Accountability is the practice of holding teachers, schools, and districts responsible for increasing student learning and performance. It carries both tremendous benefits and challenges. All educators and educational stakeholders share a common goal of advancing student learning, and testing can provide valuable information about what students have learned, as well as a common framework for measuring achievement across age levels and geographic regions.

However, accountability is complex, and standardized test scores are often treated as the primary—or even sole—indicator of teacher effectiveness and school quality. This approach can be unfair, especially when we consider the unequal distribution of resources among schools, the cultural bias embedded in standardized tests, and the reality that some students experience significant test anxiety, resulting in inaccurate or incomplete measures of their learning.

High-stakes testing, in particular, is frequently used as a central tool for enforcing accountability. When student learning is assessed primarily through standardized tests, it becomes essential to interrogate the issue of bias in these assessments. While all forms of evaluation contain some degree of implicit bias, standardized testing is especially vulnerable to cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic biases (Couch et al., 2021; Taylor & Bobbit Nolan, 2022).

High-stakes testing has long been supported by both major political parties in the United States. In 2002, the U.S. government passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) into law (United States Congress, 2002). As a policy, NCLB relied on high-stakes testing as the central mechanism for school reform, mandating that all students be tested in reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in high school, with additional provisions requiring science testing at least once at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

If schools did not show consistent growth on these tests in subgroups related to race, economic class, special education, and English language proficiency, among others, they faced sanctions such as the loss of federal funding, with the ultimate policy goal of all students reaching 100% proficiency by 2014 (Karp, 2006). In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was passed, taking steps to reduce standardized testing.

Video 8.2

 QR -Video 8.2

In an age of accountability and data driven-curriculum, policymakers have supported standardized and other testing measures. However, some organizations have highlighted the importance of maintaining a balance between teaching and testing. The “Learning Is More Than a Test Score” campaign has brought to light the curricula omissions in favor of increased time for preparation and testing. Studies reveal that students spend 20 to 50 hours each year taking tests,  while those in heavily tested grades spend 60 to more than 110 hours per year. These figures translate to additional pupil expenditures of approximately $700, and at times more than $1,000 per year, accounting for 20 to 40 minutes of lost instructional time each day (see footnote 1). The debate about the loss of academic time and the dollars spent versus the benefits of test preparation takes place in every state across the nation.

8.4 Types of Assessment

When used correctly, assessment is an integral part of the teaching and learning process. For teachers, it drives their instructions and for students, it drives their learning. When done well, the feedback educators provide can help students understand how to achieve their goals. In this section, we will focus on different types of assessment.

 QR -Video 8.3

Diagnostic Assessment

The diagnostic assessment is a form of pre-assessment that allows teachers to learn about students’ strengths, weaknesses, knowledge and skills before their instruction begins. This type of assessment is not usually graded as it is a baseline to determine where to start a lesson or unit. By using diagnostic assessment, teachers can plan more meaningful and efficient instruction and provide students with a more individualized learning experience.

Video 8.4

 QR -Video 8.4

Formative Assessment: Assessment for Learning

The formative assessment occurs throughout a lesson or unit and may take a variety of forms. Teachers use it to gather evidence of what students know and can do, then adjust instruction in response. Question and answer discussions, checklists, quick writes, paper and pencil tasks, and interactive games such as Kahoot and Jeopardy may assist in similar data collection.

An informed teacher uses these results to re-engage learners, re-teach key concepts, or modify the teaching plans to meet the individual needs of the students. Formative assessments are typically lower stress than summative assessments. When used effectively, formative assessment provides valuable feedback that guides both teaching and learning in the moment.

This is an example of a formative assessment: after teaching a lesson on the constitutional amendments, a Social Studies teacher gives students a quick Kahoot check. The teacher is pleased to see that students understand the general idea of amendments, but many confuse the First Amendment with the Fourth Amendment. Based on this, she decides to do a short sorting activity the next day where students match each amendment with its correct description.

Summative Assessment: Assessment of Learning

Summative assessment is the evaluation given at the conclusion of a unit or lesson. These assessments determine the level of student proficiency and are often used to assign grades or make placement decisions. The results of summative assessments are not used for lesson planning; rather, they are used to evaluate how well students have mastered the material. When we refer to proficiency, we are talking about students’ ability to accomplish the goals outlined in a unit of study.

While many students are familiar only with tests as summative assessments, teachers often use additional tools such as projects, performances, and portfolios to evaluate learning. For example, a portfolio assessment might include a collection of a student’s writing over time, showcasing growth toward a learning target. A project-based summative assessment could involve applying key concepts in a creative or authentic task.

Consider this example: At Portland Community College, in the Educational Department, instructors, at the end of a unit, might ask students to demonstrate their learning using a medium of their choice, such as a graphic piece, video, dramatic performance, poem, essay, or song, while still showing a clear understanding of the theme being studied. To evaluate this type of project, the instructor uses a rubric that outlines the criteria for success. These criteria may include the accuracy of key ideas, creativity, clarity of communication, connections to unit goals, and the quality of research, when research is required for the assignment.

Introducing these types of examples helps students understand that summative assessments can take many forms beyond traditional tests and that rubrics offer a transparent framework for how their work will be evaluated.

Formative Vs. Summative Assessment:

• Formative Assessment:
  • Ongoing, low-stakes, and embedded in instruction
  • Informs next instructional steps (reteach, regroup, enrich)
  • Provides immediate feedback for teachers and students
  • Often ungraded or minimally graded
  • Examples: exit tickets, class discussions, quick writes, observation notes, self-checks, drafts with feedback

• Summative Assessment:
  • Periodic, higher-stakes, administered after instruction
  • Certifies level of mastery or proficiency
  • Provides final evaluation of learning outcomes
  • Graded against clear criteria or standards
  • Examples: end-of-term exams, final projects, performances, portfolios, skills demonstrations

Assessment as Learning

In addition to formative and summative approaches, assessment as learning emphasizes the role of students as active participants in their own learning. Students reflect on their progress, set goals, and use feedback to self-assess and make adjustments. Examples include learning journals, goal-setting checklists, and reflection logs. This approach helps students develop metacognitive skills—the ability to think about their own thinking, understand how they learn best, and make purposeful choices to improve their learning—and ultimately take greater ownership of their academic growth.

Video 8.5

 QR -Video 8.5

Assessment Supports for Diverse Learners

To learn about how schools design assessments that are accessible to all learners, especially students with disabilities, we invite you to explore the following article from the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO):
“Principles and Characteristics of Inclusive Assessment and Accountability Systems.”
(https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/onlinepubs/Synthesis40.html)

Research on inclusive assessment practices highlights a range of strategies educators use to support students throughout the assessment process. For students with disabilities, clearly articulated accommodations—such as extended time, alternate test formats, or assistive technologies—are essential for ensuring equitable access to assessments without altering the constructs being measured. These approaches demonstrate how thoughtful assessment design can promote fairness while maintaining the integrity of what is being evaluated. (nceo.umn.edu)

8.5 Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy was introduced in Chapter 6 as a framework for designing instruction and learning objectives. Bloom’s Taxonomy has been used for decades in the United States to both design instruction and assess learning. The intent is to promote critical thinking and guide educators in planning for the desired level of cognitive complexity. Teachers must first define the intended level of complexity and then assess accordingly. Once educators assess learning, they can redesign the instructional approach based on the results. In this way, assessment and instructional design are involved in a symbiotic, organic, and iterative process. Effective instruction depends on ongoing assessment.

Designing and administering assessments that align with standards and engage students at various levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy is an important first step. Equally important is analyzing the data collected. Analysis of data can occur at the individual, small group, or whole-class levels. For example, if many students demonstrate a similar misunderstanding on an assessment, that data indicates the teacher should re-teach the content to increase students’ mastery. This process is called data-driven instruction, which uses assessment results to inform instructional next steps.

Assessment and grading are not the same. Grades may reflect assessment results, but not all assessments are graded. Assessments can include both quantitative and qualitative data. For example, observing students during an activity may not result in a grade, but it can provide important information about what a student does or does not understand.

When teachers understand the cognitive demand of each level of Bloom’s Taxonomy, they can ensure students engage with a balanced range of thinking skills. When used thoughtfully, Bloom’s Taxonomy supports purposeful instruction and helps ensure that every learner is both supported and stretched in meaningful ways. It also lays the foundation for designing fair and meaningful assessments before considering how those assessments translate into grades and student feedback.

8.6 Grading and Feedback in Learning

Once learning objectives and assessments are clearly defined, the next step is determining how to represent student progress through grading. Grading systems provide a structure for communicating what students have learned, how well they’ve met expectations, and where additional support or challenge may be needed. Grading involves assigning scores or labels–such as letter grades, rubric scores, complete or incomplete labels, or numeric values–to a student’s performance on a task.

While traditional grading systems often summarize performance into a single number or letter, newer models emphasize progress and mastery of specific skills. Common approaches you may have experienced in schools include mastery grading and standards-based grading.

Mastery grading structures courses in a way that allows students the time and flexibility to focus on mastering a standard rather than achieving a certain numeric or letter grade. Standards-based grading, on the other hand, breaks down the subject matter into smaller “learning targets.” Each target (often phrased as an “I can” statement) represents  a teachable concept that students should master by the end of the course. Throughout the term, student learning on each target is recorded (Common Goal Systems, 2021).

For example, a traditional report card might list a single grade such as an A or a percentage like 96%. In a standards-based report card, each target is broken down:

• “I can solve number sentences that have brackets” – scored 1-4
• “I can find the sum of two-digit numbers” -scored 1-4

In this scale, 1 indicates little or no mastery and 4 indicates advanced mastery. Teachers track student progress, give appropriate feedback, and adapt instruction to meet student needs.

The issue of grading is complex and often confusing for new teachers. There may be department-, school-, or district-wide rules about how many grades a teacher should have in a quarter or semester. In some cases, students may earn high grades that do not fully reflect their true understanding of the content. Most would agree that the primary purpose of the grading system is to clearly, accurately, consistently, and fairly communicate learning progress and achievement to students, families, postsecondary institutions, and prospective employers (Great Schools Partnerships, 2021). However, if teachers do not provide timely and meaningful feedback, grading can sometimes interfere with a genuine understanding of student learning.

As educators continue to refine grading practices, questions of fairness and equity become central. The next section explores how grading systems can either reinforce or reduce inequities in the classroom, and what it means to grade for equity.

Grading for Equity

In an ideal world, grades and assessments would be fair and impartial. However, the reality is that bias can, and often does, find its way into grading systems. One effective way to minimize this bias is through the consistent use of rubrics with clear and specific criteria.

In a study by David M Quinn (2021), teachers were asked to evaluate two second grade writing samples, one labeled as the work of a Black student and the other as a White student. Teachers tended to assign higher scores to the sample they believed came from the White student. Yet, when teachers used a grading rubric with specific criteria, this racial bias disappeared. Therefore, rubrics not only help students understand expectations in advance, but they also reduce opportunities for implicit bias to influence grading decisions. The use of transparent, criterion-based tools supports both fairness and accountability in assessment.

You can learn more about this study by reading the article in the Pause and Ponder section below.

Through his work as a teacher and administrator, Joe Feldman has become a leading advocate for more equitable grading. He points out that students have to navigate very different grading systems in each of their classrooms, and it may not always lead to equitable grading despite the best intentions of their teachers.

Many educators base grades on factors such as participation, homework completion and timeliness. While these elements may seem fair, they often reflect differences in access, resources and prior support rather than true mastery of content. Feldman argues that traditional grading practices, though rarely designed to be inequitable, are often unexamined and can lead to negative, long-lasting consequences for students.

Feldman identifies several core problems with traditional grading systems:

1. Inconsistency: Grading practices vary widely from teacher to teacher, and are often subjective
2. Lack of Clarity: Grades may provide unclear  or misleading information to students, parents, and postsecondary institutions
3. Bias: Traditional grading practices can unintentionally reflect racial, class, and gender biases
4. Mathematical inaccuracy: Many grading practices use mathematically unsound calculations that distort student achievement and progress

By examining and rethinking grading practices through an equity lens, educators can ensure that grades more accurately reflect what students know and can do, rather than their behavior, background, or access to resources.

Feldman’s Recommendations for Equitable Grading:

1. Practices that are mathematically sound: Using algorithms that conform to sound mathematical principles and reflect growth and learning as well as truly describe a student’s level of mastery. Examples: Using a 0-4 instead of a 0-100 point scale; avoiding giving students scores of zero; weighing more recent performance and growth instead of averaging performance over time.
2. Practices that value knowledge, not environment or behavior: Evaluating students only on their level of content mastery, not how they act (or how teachers perceive or interpret their behavior). Examples: Not grading subjectively interpreted behaviors such as a student’s “effort” or “participation”, or on completion of homework; focusing grades on required content or standards, not extra credit or when work is turned in; not using grades to control students or reward compliance; providing alternative consequences for cheating or missed assignments.
3. Practices that support hope and a growth mindset: Encouraging mistakes as part of the learning process and building students’ persistence and resilience. Examples: Allowing test/project retakes to emphasize and reward learning rather than penalize it; replacing previous scores with current scores.
4. Practices that “lift the veil” on how to succeed: Making grades simpler to understand and more transparent. Examples: Creating effective, standards-aligned rubrics; using simplified grade calculations and standards-based scales and gradebooks.
5. Practices that build soft skills without including them in the grade: Supporting students’ intrinsic motivation and confidence rather than relying on an extrinsic point system. Examples: Using peer/self-evaluation and reflection; using a more expansive range of feedback strategies; building self-regulation.

Improved grading practices are accurate, bias-resistant, and motivating, helping all students see that success is attainable through growth and effort rather than compliance or perfection.

Video 8.6

 QR -Video 8.6

Conclusion

Grades can classify learners with positive and negative consequences. They can motivate or squelch desire. They can encourage or demean. They can be used to punish or to teach. As you can see, the stroke of a pen can have lasting impressions on a student’s life. It is critical for educators to recognize that grades carry lasting consequences and to use them thoughtfully, ensuring that every mark communicates not only achievement but also the belief that every student can learn and grow.

References

Active Learning | Center for Educational Innovation. (n.d.).

Allen, G. E. (2004). “Was Nazi eugenics created in the US?”. EMBO Reports, 5(5), 451–452

Couch, M., Frost, M., Santiago, J., & Hilton, A. (2021). Rethinking Standardized Testing From An Access, Equity And Achievement Perspective: Has Anything Changed For African American Students? Journal of Research Initiatives, 5(3).

Elsesser, K. (2019, December 11). Lawsuit claims SAT and ACT are Biased- Here’s What Research Says. Forbes.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) | U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.).

Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for equity. Corwin.

Galton, F. (1904). Eugenics: Its definition, scope, and aims. The American Journal of Sociology, 10(1), 82–95.

Guzmán, G. (2021). “Things change you know”: Schools as the architects of the Mexican race in Depression-era Wyoming. History of Education Quarterly, 61(4), 392–422.

Hood, S., Hopson, R. K., & Frierson, H. T. (Eds.). (2022). Race and culturally responsive inquiry in education: Improving research, evaluation, and assessment. Harvard Education Press.

Hurford, Donna, and Andrew Read. Bias-Aware Teaching, Learning and Assessment. 1st ed., Critical Publishing, 2022.

Jones, J., Bosworth, D. A., & Lonetree, A. (2011). American Indian boarding schools: An exploration of global ethnic & cultural cleansing. Ziibiwing Center of Anishinabe Culture & Lifeways.

Milner, H. R. (2012). Beyond a Test Score: Explaining Opportunity Gaps in Educational Practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 693–718.

National Library of Medicine. (2009). Eugenics. Unified Medical Language System.

Nelson-Barber, S., & Trumbull, E. (2007). Making assessment practices valid for Indigenous American students. Journal of American Indian Education, 132-147.

Opinion | The quiet resegregation of America constitutes a national crisis”. NBC News. Retrieved January 4, 2022.

Phelps, R. (2006). Measuring Intelligence: Facts and Fallacies.. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 27(4), 356.

Pratt’s Speech — Upstander project. (n.d.). Upstander Project.

Richmond, E. (2012, June 11). Schools are more segregated today than during the late 1960s. The Atlantic.

Schwartz, K. (2019, February 10). How teachers are changing grading practices with an eye on equity. KQED.

Taylor, C. S., & Nolen, S. B. (2022). Culturally and socially responsible assessment: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.

Teaching Innovation and Pedagogical Support. (2022, July 26). Using Bloom’s taxonomy to write effective learning outcomes.

Wells, M., & Clayton, C. (n.d.). Chapter 6: Curriculum: Planning, assessment, & instruction. Foundations of American Education: A Critical Lens.

Ziibiwing Center of Anishinabe Culture & Lifeways. (n.d.). Ziibiwing Center of Anishinabe Culture & Lifeways. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.

‌Images

8.1 – “Safavid-star” by wikimedia comons is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

8.2 “Frontispiece and title page of “Eugenics” | Andrew Kuchling | “ by Andrew Kuchling is licensed under CC BY 4.0

8.3 “You a Mathematician or Nah? Solidifying Black Boy Brilliance Through Culturally Responsive Mathematics Instruction” by Heineman Blog

8.4 “HD wallpaper: Human Knowledge Shows Understanding Education And Global, comprehension | Wallpaper Flare” is in the Public Domain, CC0

8.5  “File:Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy.jpg – Wikimedia Commons” is in the Public Domain, CC0

8.6 “School Report Card – Openclipart” is in the Public Domain, CC0

8.7 “school, learn, students, forward, children, young people, positive, hope, board, write | Pxfuel” is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Videos

8.1 “The dark history of IQ tests – Stefan C. Dombrowski” by Stefan C. Dombrowski is in the Public Domain, CC0

8.2 “Should we get rid of standardized testing? – Arlo Kempf” by Arlo Kempf is in the

Public Domain, CC0

8.3 “Assessment in Education: Top 14 Examples” by Frank Arela is in the

Public Domain, CC0

8.4 Teachings in Education. (2020, March 18). Diagnostic assessments: Examples & overview [Video]. YouTube.

8.5 Edutopia. (2015, August 20). Self-Assessment: Reflections from Students and Teachers [Video]. YouTube.

8.6 KGW News. “Portland Public Schools Considers Pivot to “Equitable Grading Practices.” YouTube, 1 Sept. 2023. Accessed 11 July 2025.