ABSTRACT
Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA) was initially conceptualized as a category of techniques used to test student performance with materials that were sampled from the local curriculum (Tucker, 1985). The rationale was that the most instructionally relevant information is that which substantially corresponds with the student’s experience in the classroom. Direct observation of student performance within classroom conditions provides insight on how a student performs in the curriculum and what might be done to improve student achievement. In many ways, CBA contrasts with that of published norm-referenced tests (PNRT). PNRT include most state accountability measures, along with many individually administered tests that are used by educational diagnosticians and school psychologists. They are not designed or intended to ensure substantial overlap with the curriculum or instructional procedures that are employed locally. Instead, PNRT are generally designed to represent the broad domain of an academic subject, such as reading or mathematics. They are not designed to guide curriculum placement or help refine instructional procedures. Instead, they are often used for accountability or classification. As a result, PNRT are commonly viewed as tangential or irrelevant to daily instruction. CBA was conceptualized, in part, to fill the gap left by PNRT, with improved relevance to daily instruction and curriculum placement decisions.
