Our Projects
Assessments Audit in a Large Suburban District
The Challenge
A large suburban district in the Dallas area asked how effective and efficient its student assessment system was, and what it cost.
Assessment data were part of daily practice across the district's schools and central office, and teachers and leaders relied on them for instructional and monitoring decisions. Gathering those data took student time, teacher time, and money. The district asked for an audit of the effectiveness, efficiency, and cost of its required state and district assessments, with recommendations for a more efficient and effective system.
Our Support
Gibson Consulting Group analyzed the district's assessment calendar, costs, and test data, interviewed district staff, held focus groups with school leaders, and surveyed teachers districtwide, drawing 1,142 respondents. The September 2025 report found that students took about 75 required assessments in 2024–25, on average, and made 12 recommendations.
Gibson built the audit from a data request, then interviews, focus groups, and a survey.
Assessment inventory. The team counted required assessments and minimum testing hours by grade from the 2024–25 assessment calendar and totaled direct assessment costs.
Stakeholder input. District interviews, school leadership focus groups, and a districtwide teacher survey asked how each assessment was used and whether its purpose was clear.
Technical analysis. For 25 district-created benchmark assessments, Gibson examined correlation with state test results, reliability, and specificity, and checked selected items against the curriculum sequence.
Results
About 75 required assessments and about 40 hours of required testing per student in 2024–25, on average (minimum estimate, excluding optional tests and retests).
About $1.8 million allocated for direct assessment costs in 2024–25.
75% of teachers said the number of required assessments was "just too much," and 78% wanted fewer.
Of the 25 benchmark assessments examined, 92% fell at or below the 0.80 standard for correlation with state test results, 60% for reliability, and 84% for specificity.
12 recommendations, including procedural controls for the assessment system (for example, one district assessments lead), a defined purpose for each assessment, and discontinuing most benchmark administration
Based on these findings and recommendations, the district revised how it approached assessments by explicitly clarifying the purpose of each assessment and reducing the number of required assessments.
For your district. A district reviewing its testing calendar can use an audit of this kind to decide which assessments to keep, which to drop, and what each one should be used for.