Edition #21: Sorting Out Formative and Summative Assessments
Where I do my best to sort out the different between formative assessments, summative assessments, and grading systems (sorry, this is a long one!)
When it comes to teaching and learning, I deliberately steer away from the topic of grades. Once they enter the conversation, the focus quickly pivots away from student learning and toward systems and rankings and other myriad frustrations. This really shouldn’t come as a surprise, particularly given that, from their inception, grading systems were never meant to support, measure, or facilitate learning.1
And — I also know that grades are something that many educators have to contend with, for better or for worse. So this week, I’m going to try and speak to some of these frustrations, as well as address a few of the more pervasive misconceptions about grading and assessment, particularly when it comes to the relationship between formative assessment, summative assessment, and grading systems. Buckle up.
To unpack this triumvirate, we first need to sort out the difference between formative and summative assessment. One of the most pervasive (and insidious) misconceptions I often hear is that formative assignments = homework and that summative assignments = tests or essays (or worse, that formative = optional and summative = required), as if the thing that distinguishes one from the another is about the substance or the mode in which it’s done. This could not be further from the truth. Rather, the difference is found in what we — students and teachers — do with the assessments.
Formative assessments inform decisions about student learning. From the perspective of a teacher, we might use such assessments to determine whether or not students are ready to move onto new material and then design the next learning experience accordingly. From the perspective of a student, this often means engaging with feedback, or the specific steps they might take to improve their learning.2 Summative assessments, on the other hand, aim to assess whether or not a student has learned a particular understanding or skill. In other words, they are an evaluation, or a “summary” of where a student is.
But here’s the thing: depending on the context, a summative assessment can become a formative assessment.
And they often do. To illustrate this point, let’s evoke an example from track and field (a sport I coached for many years). Imagine an athlete has been learning how to long jump and they are ready to compete at their first regular season meet (i.e. a summative assessment, or a formal evaluation of their current skillset). At the competition, they get a bit nervous and foul their first jump, so their coach has them adjust their run-up. Then they foul their second jump, so the coach and athlete adjust the run-up one more time. This leads to a legal mark on their third attempt, but the athlete is well behind the board and they record a distance that is, functionally, well below their current capacity. Summatively speaking, this “official” mark is what goes into the results. It’s kind of like the grade (more that in a minute). But in practice the next day, the coach and athlete decide to spend additional time on their approach work, implementing new techniques to address the issue. The summative assessment has become a formative assessment.
How exactly do these principles get translated into grading systems? One of the most influential figures on this front in recent years is Joe Feldman, whose argued in his book Grading for Equity that “equitable grading that is accurate and bias resistant includes nothing other than a student’s summative assessment results”.3 If we go back to the earlier example from track field, does the athlete’s performance count as a summative assessment, or is it formative? What if the athlete improves their performance in their subsequent meets? Do we simply average those marks together? Take the most recent?
Interestingly enough, Feldman addresses these questions and is very clear about how they should be resolved. Not only does he acknowledge that summative assessments can become formative, he also writes that “whether an assessment is a summative or a formative assessment is up to the professional expertise of the teacher; once more learning will occur, the formerly summative assessment becomes a formative assessment, by definition”.4 (emphasis mine)
Put another way: if we accept the premise that there should be a relationship between summative assessments and grades, then our grading system must also provide for contextual flexibility. Without it, we very quickly fall back into the misconception that there is something qualitatively different about formative and summative assessments, regardless of how we use them. This is one of the reasons why Feldman ultimately lands on a standards-based grading system — and why many other schools that have taken up the principles in his work have adopted competency-based learning structures or sought to link up with the Mastery Transcript Consortium. It’s an essential component of his framework. I will say more about these different systems in a later edition, but if there are two big takeaways that I hope I’ve surfaced today, it’s that:
The difference between summative assessments and formative assessments is about how they are used, which means it’s possible for summative assessments to become formative.
If grading systems are meant to reflect this distinction, they must provide for contextual flexibility.
Here’s a few more resources to help you think through these concepts, if you feel so inclined to explore. Otherwise, Happy Monday!
This Edition’s Spotlight: Sorting Out Formative and Summative Assessments
Because grades were never actually meant to measure learning: Daniel Pink, “Why not get rid of grades?” The Washington Post (March 3, 2025)
Key pillars for providing more effective feedback: Bowman Dixon and Andy Housiaux, “Feedback in Practice: Research for Teachers” Tang Institute at Phillips Academy
This is an older piece but very much worth sharing in this context: Tom Sherrington, “Revisiting Dylan Wiliam’s Five Brilliant Formative Assessment Strategies,” Teacherhead (January 10, 2019)
Another older piece, though Tyler Rablin is a must-follow for anyone interested in this topic: Tyler Rablin, “How to Make Sure Grades Are Meaningful and Useful to Students,” Edutopia (November 25, 2020)
Other Things in the Ether…
A different way to think about the importance of modeling mistakes: John Spencer, “Taking a Beta Approach to Teaching and Innovation,” John Spencer (March 6, 2025).
This piece couldn’t be more timely, given last edition’s focus: Tyler Rablin, “4 Ways to Boost Students’ Self-Efficacy,” Edutopia (March 4, 2025)
Presentation skills are important but they so easily slip into passive learning models when students are cast as receptacles that we are “dumping” knowledge into. Here are some ways to shift that dynamic: John Schembari, “Getting Creative With Student Presentations,” Edutopia (February 27, 2025)
You don’t have to travel far for effective PD. Sometimes you can find it in the classroom across the hall: Renee Gugel, “I Work With New Teachers. Every One Wanted This PD,” Education Week (March 4, 2025)
Schools still struggle to incorporate research-backed reading instruction: Jill Barshay, “Reading comprehension loses out in the classroom,” The Hechinger Report (March 10, 2025)
To build community, start by listening: Tom Szczesny, “3 Steps to Stronger School Connections,” ASCD (February 27, 2025)
Upcoming PD in the DMV(ish)…
Thursday, March 20: “DC-PZ at The Phillips Collection” from DCPZ*
Wednesday, March 26: “Planning Oral History Projects” from DCHumanities*
June 24-25: “Leadership Lab” from the Masters Schools and Leadership + Design (Dobbs Ferry, NY)
July 14-17: Science of Learning and Leadership Academy (CTTL) at St. Andrew’s (Potomac, MD)
August 4-8: WISSIT 2025
*Free!
See Joe Feldman, Grading for Equity: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How It Can Transform Schools and Classrooms (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2019), 17-24.
See Dylan Wiliam, “The Secret of Effective Feedback,” ASCD Vol. 73, No. 6 (April 1, 2016).
See Feldman, Grading for Equity, 143.
Ibid, 167.