Leading Assessment: The Triple-A Framework for Educational Leaders

  • Johanna de LeeuwEmail author
Part of the The Enabling Power of Assessment book series (EPAS, volume 2)


At a time when accountability for student performance continues to be a central theme in education reform policy, literacy in student assessment is considered key, if not indispensable for successful educational leaders at every administrative level. Drawing from a wide range of studies published in the last decade on the links between student assessment and educational leadership, three overarching themes are demonstrated to provide a framework for understanding assessment literacy for educational leaders. The ‘Triple-A Model’ proposes three intersecting points to reflect the complex construction of assessment: aims, approach, and accountability. First, today’s leader understands that the aim of educational assessment is no longer straightforward but encompasses a wide variety of purposes that are often confused and poorly understood. Second, an intentional, knowledgeable, and visionary approach to leadership is shown to be a key factor in the quality of instruction that occurs in classrooms. Third, accountability is not only a means for communication between schools and the public, but the result of increasing demands by society and its governments to know and understand what actually happens with students in classrooms.


Assessment Formative Summative Criterion-referenced Norm-referenced Outcomes Achievement Leadership Administration Instructional Distributed Accountability Policies Practice Standardised Testing Performance Reform 


  1. Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessment: How to connect standards-based instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alberta Education. (2006). Renewed framework for authorities funding school jurisdictions. Retrieved from:
  3. Alberta Education. (2009a). Accountability in Alberta’s education system. Retrieved from:
  4. Alberta Education. (2009b). How the accountability pillar works. Retrieved from:
  5. Alberta Education. (2010a). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans. Retrieved from:
  6. Alberta Education. (2010b). Inspiring action on education. Retrieved from:
  7. Alberta Education. (2011). Framework for student learning: Competencies for engaged thinkers and ethical citizens with an entrepreneurial spirit. Retrieved from:
  8. Alberta Education. (2013). Information Bulletin: Student learning assessments update. Retrieved from:
  9. Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2005). Accountability in education: Background paper. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Alberta Teachers’ Association.Google Scholar
  10. Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2007). Real learning first: the teaching profession’s view of student assessment, evaluation, and accountability. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Alberta Teachers’ Association.Google Scholar
  11. Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2008). Methodological concerns about the education value-added assessment system. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 65–75. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08316420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barber, M. (2005). National strategies for educational reform: Lessons from the British experience since 1988. In M. Fullan (Ed.), Fundamental change: International handbook of educational change (pp. 73–97). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barber, M. (2008). From system effectiveness to system improvement: Reform paradigms and relationships. In A. Hargreaves & M. Fullan (Eds.), Change wars (pp. 71–96). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  14. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139.Google Scholar
  15. Blanchard, J. (2003). Targets, assessment for learning, and whole-school improvement. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Broadfoot, P., & Black, P. (2004). Redefining assessment? The first ten years of assessment in education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burger, J., Aitken, A., Brandon, J., Klinck, P., McKinnon. G., & Mutch, S. (2001). The next generation of basic education accountability in Alberta, Canada: A policy dialogue. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning. University of Calgary, 5(19). Retrieved from:
  20. Burger, J. M., & Krueger, M. (2003). A balanced approach to high stakes achievement testing: An analysis of literature with policy implications. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning. University of Calgary, 7(4). Retrieved from:
  21. Couture, J.-C. (2009). Collateral damage of government’s accountability policies a key focus of 2009 ARA. The ATA News, 43(18).Google Scholar
  22. Covaleskie, J. F. (2009). Two cheers for standardized testing. International Electronic Journal for Leadership, 6(2). Retrieved from:
  23. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Teaching and the change wars: The professionalism hypothesis. In A. Hargreaves & M. Fullan (Eds.), Change wars (pp. 45–70). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  25. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Performance counts: Assessment systems that support high-quality learning. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from: Scholar
  26. Darling-Hammond, L., & Pecheone, R. (2010). Developing an internationally comparable balanced assessment system that supports high-quality learning. Paper presented at the National Conference on Next Generation Assessment Systems. Retrieved from:
  27. Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Leithwood, K., & Kington, A. (2008). Research into the impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: Policy and research contexts. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Desrosier, J. (2011). Rapid prototyping reconsidered. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59, 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(4), 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dinham, S. (2007). How schools get moving and keep improving: Leadership for teacher learning, student success and school renewal. Australian Journal of Education, 51(3), 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  32. Elmore, R. F. (2004a). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.Google Scholar
  33. Elmore, R. F. (2004b). Performance vs. attainment. Harvard Education Letter, 20(5), 8–17.Google Scholar
  34. Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. Educational Forum, 69(2), 134–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Erkens, C. (2009). Paving the way for an assessment rich culture. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.), The principal as assessment leader. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  36. Fuhrman, S. H., & Elmore, R. F. (Eds.). (2003). Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  37. Fullan, M. (2005a). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Fullan, M. (2005b). Turnaround leadership. Educational Forum, 69(2), 174–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fullan, M. (2006a). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7(3), 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fullan, M. (2006b). Leading professional learning. (cover story). School Administrator, 63(10), 10–14.Google Scholar
  41. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  42. Gilmore, A. (2002). Large-scale assessment and teachers’ assessment capacity: Learning opportunities for teachers in the national education monitoring project in New Zealand. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 9(3), 343–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Graczewski, C., Knudson, J., & Holtzman, D. J. (2009). Instructional leadership in practice: What does it look like, and what influence does it have? Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(1), 72–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Grobe, W. J., & McCall, D. (2004). Valid uses of student testing as part of authentic and comprehensive student assessment, school reports, and school system accountability. Educational Horizons, 82(2), 131–142.Google Scholar
  45. Gronn, P. (2008). The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Guskey, T. R., Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., Crooks, T., & Stockton, L. (2006). Literacy assessment New Zealand style. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 74–79.Google Scholar
  47. Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012). The global fourth way: The quest for educational excellence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  49. Harlen, W. (2008). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning – tensions and synergies. In W. Harlen (Ed.), Student assessment and testing (Vol. 1, pp. 292–308). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Oxon, OX: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Hattie, J. (2011). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Oxon, OX: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Klinger, D. A., DeLuca, C., & Miller, T. (2008). The evolving culture of large-scale assessments in Canadian education. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration & Policy, 76, 1–34.Google Scholar
  53. Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising scores, ruining schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  54. Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership in the context of accountability policies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Leithwood, K., & Day, C. (2008). The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership for large-scale reform: The case of England’s national literacy and numeracy strategy. School Leadership & Management, 24(1), 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Levin, B., Glaze, A., & Fullan, M. (2008). Results without rancor or ranking: Ontario’s success story. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(4), 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Marks, H. M., & Nance, J. P. (2007). Contexts of accountability under systemic reform: Implications for principal influence on instruction and supervision. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McDonald, M. (2002). The perceived role of diploma examinations in Alberta, Canada. Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (1999). The understanding by design handbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  63. Møller, J. (2009). School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 10(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moore, A. D., Dexter, R. R., Berube, W. G., & Beck, C. H. (2005). Student assessment: What do superintendents need to know? Planning & Changing, 36(1), 68–89.Google Scholar
  65. Mulford, B. (2006). Leading change for student achievement. Journal of Educational Change, 7(1/2), 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Murphy, J. (2004). Leadership for literacy: A framework for policy and practice. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 15(1), 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Newton, P. E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(2), 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(1), 1–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2008). Teachers, schools and using evidence: Considerations of preparedness. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(1), 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Parsons, J., & Beauchamp, L. (2012). From knowledge to action: Shaping the future of curriculum development in Alberta. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Alberta Education. Retrieved from: Scholar
  71. Penlington, C., Kington, A., & Day, C. (2008). Leadership in improving schools: A qualitative perspective. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Phelps, R. P. (Ed.). (2005). Defending standardized testing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  73. Popham, W. J. (1999). Why standardized tests don’t measure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8.Google Scholar
  74. Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator's call to action. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  75. Popham, W. J. (2003). Test better, teacher better: The role of instructional assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  76. Popham, W. J. (2006). Assessment for educational leaders. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  77. Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reeves, D. B. (2007). From the bell curve to the mountain: A new vision for achievement, assessment, and equity. In D. B. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  79. Robinson, V. M. J. (2008). Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Robinson, V. M. J. (2011). Student centered leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  81. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Robinson, V. M. J., & Timperley, H. S. (2007). The leadership of the improvement of teaching and learning: Lessons from initiatives with positive outcomes for students. Australian Journal of Education, 51(3), 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Roos, B., & Hamilton, D. (2005). Formative assessment: A cybernetic viewpoint. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12(1), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rose, A. B. (2009). The courage to implement standards based report cards. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.), The principal as assessment leader (pp. 175–200). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  85. Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sadler, D. R. (2007). Perils in the meticulous specification of goals and assessment criteria. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 387–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sahlberg, P. (2009). Learning first. In K. Gariepy, B. L. Spencer, & J.-C. Couture (Eds.), Educational accountability: Professional voices from the field (pp. 1–22). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  91. Scott, S., & Webber, C. F. (2008). Evidence-based leadership development: The 4 L framework. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(6), 762–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  93. Slomp, D. H. (2008). Harming not helping: The impact of a Canadian standardized writing assessment on curriculum and pedagogy. Assessing Writing, 13(3), 180–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence. School Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Spencer, B. L., & Couture, J.-C. (2009). Introduction. In K. Gariepy, B. L. Spencer, & J.-C. Couture (Eds.), Educational accountability: Professional voices from the field (pp. 1–22). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  96. Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. Educational Forum, 69(2), 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Spillane, J. P., & Orlina, E. C. (2005). Investigating leadership practice: Exploring the entailments of taking a distributed perspective. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 4(3), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Stiggins, R., & Duke, D. (2008). Effective instructional leadership requires assessment leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(4), 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Tankersley, K. (2007). Tests that teach: Using standardized tests to improve instruction. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  100. Taras, M. (2009). Summative assessment: The missing link for formative assessment. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Timperley, H. S. (2005). Instructional leadership challenges: The case of using student achievement information for instructional improvement. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 4(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Timperley, H. S., & Parr, J. M. (2007). Closing the achievement gap through evidence-based inquiry at multiple levels of the education system. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 90–115.Google Scholar
  103. United States Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. Retrieved from:
  104. Volante, L. (2007). Educational quality and accountability in Ontario: Past, present, and future. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration & Policy, 58, 1–21.Google Scholar
  105. Volante, L., & Cherubini, L. (2007). Connecting educational leadership with multi-level assessment reform. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 11(12).Google Scholar
  106. Volante, L., Cherubini, L., & Drake, S. (2008). Examining factors that influence school administrators’ responses to large-scale assessment. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration & Policy, 84, 1–30.Google Scholar
  107. Wang, L., Beckett, G. H., & Brown, L. (2006). Controversies of standardized assessment in school accountability reform: A critical synthesis of multidisciplinary research evidence. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(4), 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Webber, C. F., Aitken, N., Lupart, J., & Scott, S. (2009). The Alberta student assessment study: Final report. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Government of Alberta. Retrieved from: Scholar
  109. Wiggins, G. (2009). Real-world writing: Making purpose and audience matter. English Journal, 98(5), 29–37.Google Scholar
  110. Wiliam, D. (2006). Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment, 11(3), 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wright, R. (2009). Methods for improving test scores: The good the bad, and the ugly. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 45(3), 116–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Founder & President, Instructional Design & AssessmentVisible Assessment for Learning Inc.CalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations