Summative assessments (e.g., benchmark and end-of-term tests) are given periodically to determine, at a point in time, what students know and do not know.

Summative assessment is a snapshot of student learning relative to content standards. It evaluates certain aspects of the learning process, such as programmes’ effectiveness, improvement in school goals, curriculum alignment, or student classification.

Formative assessment provides information at the classroom level to procure adjustments during the learning process. It is part and parcel of the learning process and provides the information – to teachers and students, about student understanding – to adjust teaching and learning in real time, to procure better achievement.

Research shows that descriptive feedback to students is the instructional strategy that helps them most significantly in their learning: it provides an understanding of what they are doing well, links to classroom learning, and specific input on how to reach the next step. Formative assessment is pedagogy and clearly cannot be separated from instruction.

A benchmark can be defined as “…a description of student knowledge expected at specific grades, ages, or developmental levels… often… used in conjunction with standards.”

Standardised tests “… are administered and scored in exactly the same way for all students… to measure skills and knowledge that are thought to be taught to all students in a fairly standardised way…”, and standards are “…what students should know and be able to demonstrate.” (www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/misc/glossary.htm#standard)

It should clearly transpire that a benchmark examination and (formative) assessment for teaching and learning cannot be interchanged and cannot effectively replace each other.

A benchmark examination leads to, and measures, the threshold levels in an educational setting at a particular age, at a point in time.

In contrast, assessment for teaching and learning is student-oriented and, to be effective, needs to be objective-based, target-based and informative.

One can understand the need for a national benchmark exam, composed of standardised tests, for given informational needs, but such an examination should not displace any part of the programme of formative and summative assessment activities adopted in a given school.

Benchmark exams are also administered internationally, as TIMMS, PISA and PIRLS. However, no school would dream of setting one of the latter tests as an end-of-year assessment.

One of the main features and functions of assessment should be to evaluate the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process. Consequently, an examination that adopts a different set of standards from the ones used during teaching activity cannot fulfil this function.

So why should certain Church schools with a proven and effective assessment system replace their exams with an external benchmark, more so if the information from the benchmark is useless to them?

Benchmark tests should not replace the formative and/or summative assessment exercises that are contextualised within a specific educational setting – contextualisation enhances their effectiveness.

Benchmarking tests can be administered at any time during the year and not necessarily when schools have their in-house assessments.