Properly utilized, assessment should not be viewed as the archenemy of education, but rather, as a process that supports its improvement. Formative assessment, adapted to the local context and developed as well as validated with the local curriculum, has much to offer. As initially conceptualised by Deno, curriculum-based measurement (CBM), a subtype of formative assessment, is intended to be used in determining if individual students are making sufficient progress in acquiring basic academic skills and in ascertaining whether learners are receiving high-quality instruction that meets their educational needs. A key difference between CBM and summative assessment is the degree to which the former provides information that can be used to improve instructional decision-making. In 2013, a project was initiated between the University of Minnesota (UMN) in the United States (US) and Avinashilingam University in India with the goal of improving student academic performance in reading and math. One of the main approaches taken to help achieve this goal was the development, validation, and use of local CBM reading and math assessments. At approximately the same time, work was begun on developing a formative assessment system for children with the most significant disabilities as part of a collaboration between UMN and Krasnoyarsk State University in the Russian Federation. This presentation will describe the process through which the formative assessment systems were developed and validated in three countries, taking into consideration significant cultural and contextual differences with respect to (1) the manner in which disability is conceptualised, (2) a focus on evidence-based versus theoretically based approaches to educational pedagogy, (3) different histories and trajectories with respect to including persons with disabilities, (4) localized versus highly centralized approaches to education, and (5) university systems that are differentially equipped to conduct the research needed to validate new approaches to educational assessment.

Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232. Restorff, D. E. & Abery, B. H. (2013). Observations of academic instruction for students with significant intellectual disability: Three states, thirty-nine classrooms, one view. Remedial and Special Education, 34(5), 282-292. Tichá, R., & Abery, B. (2015). Beyond the large-scale testing of basic skills: using formative assessment to facilitate student learning. In Smith, W.C. (Ed.), The Global Testing Culture: Shaping Education Policy, Perceptions, and Practice. Oxford: Symposium Books. Wallace, T., Tichá, R., & Gustafson, K. (2010). Technical characteristics of general outcome measures (GOMs) in reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26(4), 333-360. Wallace, T. & Tichá, R. (2012). Extending curriculum-based measurement to assess performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities. Measure of Success. In Espin, C., Rose, S., McMaster, K., & Wayman, M.M. (Eds.). A Measure of Success: How Curriculum-Based Measurement has Influenced Education and Learning. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.