Cognitive Education and Innovative Assessment in Primary School: Aligning Inclusion, Learning Progressions, and Romania’s OECD–PISA Challenges

Abstract

Assessment practices in Romanian primary education remain largely recall-based, despite curriculum expectations that prioritize reasoning, metacognition, and inclusive learning processes. This conceptual–analytical study examines the structural misalignments between curriculum goals, classroom assessment cultures, and national evaluation systems, highlighting their impact on learning equity and cognitive development. Drawing on international frameworks (OECD, UNESCO), national assessment data, and Romanian pedagogical literature, the analysis identifies three systemic gaps: curriculum–assessment misalignment, assessment–instruction misalignment, and a mismatch between equity-oriented policies and classroom practice. To address these challenges, the article proposes the ECEI Framework, an integrated developmental model that combines principles of cognitive education, metacognitive strategy development, inclusive pedagogy, and formative assessment. The framework introduces four categories of indicators—cognitive, metacognitive, inclusive, and assessment—designed to support teachers in observing and evaluating learning processes more effectively in diverse classrooms. Discipline-based illustrations in mathematics, reading, and science demonstrate how innovative assessment practices can make students’ thinking visible through authentic tasks, learning progressions, and multimodal response pathways. The findings suggest that developmental and inclusive assessment is essential for improving learning outcomes and reducing socio-economic disparities in primary education. Implementing the ECEI Framework requires targeted teacher training, coherent curriculum–assessment alignment, and system-level support to ensure sustainable changes in instructional practice.

1. Introduction

Educational systems worldwide are undergoing rapid transformation as societies increasingly rely on competencies such as metacognition, reasoning, creativity, adaptability, and self-regulation. Formative assessment is widely recognized as a central mechanism for supporting learning processes and instructional decision-making rather than merely evaluating outcomes (Black and Wiliam 2018). These competencies, emphasized in the OECD Learning Compass 2030 framework, are considered essential for learners navigating complex social, technological, and economic environments (OECD 2019). Consequently, contemporary debates in educational research highlight the need to shift from traditional recall-based assessment practices toward developmental and process-oriented evaluation models that make students’ thinking visible and support cognitive growth across diverse groups of learners. This shift is strongly supported by European and international policy and theoretical frameworks addressing inclusive education, mediated learning, and teacher well-being (European Commission 2024; Feuerstein et al. 2010; OECD 2024; Voinea and Pălașan 2022).

Romania’s recent OECD–PISA 2022 results illustrate the limitations of existing assessment practices and underscore the need for systemic change. Only 51% of Romanian students reach the minimum proficiency threshold in mathematics, compared to 69% across OECD countries; socio-economic status accounts for 26% of variance in student performance—almost double the OECD average of 15% (OECD 2023). According to UNICEF (2023), one major barrier to inclusive education in Romanian mainstream schools is the lack of concrete pedagogical tools that help teachers adapt instruction and assessment to diverse learner needs. The Inclusive Education Toolkit highlights that effective inclusion requires continuous assessment, formative feedback, and flexible planning oriented toward each child’s progress.

Within Romanian pedagogical research, the importance of cognitive development, formative evaluation, and reflective learning processes has long been recognized. Cerghit (2018) argues that meaningful learning emerges when students engage in active, problem-centered strategies that stimulate intellectual effort rather than passive reproduction. Cucoș (2020) stresses that evaluation should “serve understanding before classification,” positioning assessment as a dialogic and participatory act. Romanian pedagogical literature also emphasizes the importance of cultivating reasoning, metacognition, and reflective judgment, as well as linking developmental progression and transparent criteria with curriculum coherence and educational quality. Bocoș et al. (2015) similarly emphasize that competency-based learning requires assessment capable of revealing students’ cognitive strategies, not merely their final products.

Despite these theoretical foundations, Romanian classroom practices remain dominated by summative testing, grading, and high-stakes evaluations, which tend to narrow instruction and exacerbate inequalities. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds receive fewer opportunities to demonstrate complex thinking, collaboration, or problem-solving skills. At the same time, teachers’ limited access to practical tools—rubrics, learning progressions, micro-diagnostic strategies, or UDL-guided adaptations—contributes to the gap between curricular aspirations and real classroom experiences.

Although Romania formally uses Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) for learners with special educational needs, recent national reports and classroom observations reveal a significant discrepancy between the goals stated in IEPs and students’ actual learning outcomes. In many primary classrooms, the IEP functions more as a procedural document than an operational tool, due to time constraints, limited training, and the absence of practical adaptation instruments. This discrepancy further highlights the need for integrated, developmental, and inclusive approaches to classroom assessment.

In this context, the present study introduces the ECEI Framework (Cognitive Education + Innovative Assessment), a class-level developmental structure that integrates principles from cognitive education, inclusive pedagogy, and formative assessment. Its purpose is not to replace individualized plans such as the IEP, but to offer teachers a coherent set of cognitive and inclusive indicators that can guide everyday instructional decisions in diverse primary classrooms. By combining concepts that are typically addressed separately in the literature, the ECEI Framework provides a theoretically grounded and practically relevant lens for understanding learning processes across heterogeneous student groups.

Current evaluation models continue to privilege recall-based performance, despite global recommendations to shift from rewarding memorization to supporting the development of understanding, creativity, and critical thinking (UNESCO 2021, Section 4.3). Reframing assessment as a developmental instrument rather than a gatekeeping mechanism is therefore essential for building inclusive schooling ecosystems capable of responding to Romania’s recurrent challenges in OECD–PISA and similar evaluations. As UNESCO (2021) argues, “inclusive and equitable education is not simply a goal but a condition for sustainable futures”.

Research Questions and Objectives

This study addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: How can principles from cognitive education be integrated into innovative and inclusive assessment practices in Romanian primary schools?

RQ2: Which assessment approaches can reduce the achievement gaps highlighted by OECD–PISA 2022?

RQ3: How can the proposed ECEI Framework align classroom evaluation with competency-based curriculum expectations?

Correspondingly, the objectives of this study are to:

• analyze misalignments between Romania’s curriculum intentions and actual assessment practices;
• conceptualize an integrated model combining cognitive education with innovative assessment;
• illustrate classroom-oriented applications in mathematics, reading, and science;
• provide policy and teacher-training implications aligned with international standards.

While the individual components of the proposed framework—cognitive education, metacognition, formative assessment, and Universal Design for Learning—are well established in the literature, the originality of this study lies in their systematic integration into a class-level developmental assessment framework derived from an analysis of curriculum–assessment misalignments. The ECEI Framework is not introduced as a generic theoretical model, but as an analytically grounded response to structural gaps identified between curriculum intentions, national assessment practices, and everyday classroom evaluation in Romanian primary education.

In this sense, the framework represents a context-sensitive synthesis that translates international competency-based expectations into a coherent developmental structure applicable to mainstream classrooms.

Although cognitive education, formative assessment, and UDL are well established in educational research, existing studies rarely examine how these components can be systematically integrated into a class-level assessment framework explicitly designed to address curriculum–assessment misalignment in high-inequality systems such as Romania.

2. Materials and Methods

This study adopts a conceptual–analytical methodology, appropriate for examining structural characteristics of Romanian assessment systems and for designing developmental frameworks applicable across diverse primary school contexts.

2.1. Analytical Components

The analysis draws on four categories of sources:

➢

International frameworks: OECD Learning Compass 2030, OECD Teaching Compass, and UNESCO’s Education 2030 Agenda, addressing core competencies, metacognition, learner agency, and inclusive learning environments.

➢

Large-scale assessment data: OECD–PISA 2022, particularly socio-economic gradients, domain-specific proficiency levels, and disparities affecting Romanian learners.

➢

National assessment systems: EN II, EN IV, EN VI, and EN VIII, examined with respect to their intended pedagogical functions and their actual perceived roles in classroom assessment cultures.

➢

Romanian pedagogical literature highlights foundational contributions to cognitive development, metacognition, and formative evaluation (Bocoș et al. 2023; Cerghit 2018; Cristea 2023; Cucoș 2020).

According to UNICEF (2023), adapted and continuous assessment—such as visual routines, explicit success criteria, and structured formative feedback—is a central pillar of inclusive practice in Romanian primary schools. The Inclusive Education Toolkit highlights the relevance of differentiated rubrics, multimodal assessment tools (drawings, portfolios, concept maps), and ongoing observation for capturing authentic learner progress across diverse profiles.

2.2. Analytical Protocol

The analysis was conducted by the authors through a structured comparative procedure designed to identify systemic forms of misalignment across curriculum, assessment, and classroom practice. To ensure analytical transparency, the identification of “misalignment” was guided by three analytical criteria: (a) coherence between curriculum intentions and the cognitive demands of assessment tasks; (b) alignment between assessment formats and formative instructional practices; and (c) equity of access to learning evidence for students with diverse socio-economic and learning profiles.

Curriculum documents were analyzed to identify intended cognitive and metacognitive outcomes, while national assessment formats (EN II/IV/VI and EN VIII) and OECD–PISA task characteristics were examined in terms of their dominant cognitive demands. These sources were then interpreted in relation to documented classroom practices reported in national and international literature, allowing the identification of recurring patterns of curriculum–assessment, assessment–instruction, and equity–practice misalignment.

The development of the ECEI Framework followed four integration steps:

• mapping complementarities between cognitive education principles (mediated learning, metacognition, reasoning) and innovative assessment approaches;
• identifying systemic misalignments between curriculum intentions, classroom practices, and national assessment cultures;
• constructing the ECEI Framework by synthesizing principles from mediated learning theory, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), learning progressions, and authentic performance tasks;
• designing illustrative applications in mathematics, reading, and science, to demonstrate how ECEI indicators can guide everyday instructional decisions.

2.3. Ethical Considerations

No human participants were involved in this study. Ethical approval was not required.

2.4. Use of Generative AI

During manuscript preparation, the authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI, GPT-5.1) for language refinement, clarity enhancement, and structural editing. All content was reviewed, validated, and revised by the authors, who take full responsibility for the scientific accuracy and integrity of the manuscript.

2.5. Data Availability

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is therefore not applicable.

2.6. Methodological Limitations

As a conceptual–analytical study, this article does not generate empirical data. The ECEI Framework thus requires future empirical validation in Romanian primary school contexts. The analysis relies on international frameworks, national policy documents, and pedagogical theory, which may limit the generalizability of conclusions. However, the approach provides a coherent theoretical basis for subsequent empirical research.

3. Results

Each classroom illustration operationalizes the four ECEI indicator categories—cognitive, metacognitive, inclusive, and assessment—by translating them into observable learning tasks and assessment criteria.

Within the ECEI Framework, inclusivity is understood as the provision of multiple and flexible pathways for participation and assessment, allowing learners to demonstrate understanding through diverse modalities, pacing options, and scaffolded supports, in line with the principles of Universal Design for Learning (CAST 2022).

3.1. Alignment Analysis: Curriculum–Assessment–Practice Gaps

The conceptual analysis identifies three systemic misalignments that contribute to persistent achievement gaps in Romanian primary education:

PISA Performance Profile

These results highlight the persistent challenge of aligning curriculum standards with instructional and assessment practices. As shown in

Table 1. Romania vs. OECD—Percentage of Students Reaching Level ≥ 2 (PISA 2022).

Domain	Romania (%)	OECD Average (%)
Mathematics	51	69
Reading	58	74
Science	56	76

Socio-economic status explains 26% of performance variance in Romania—almost double the OECD average (OECD 2023).

, Romania records substantially lower proportions of students reaching minimum proficiency (Level ≥ 2) in mathematics, reading, and science compared to the OECD average, highlighting persistent curriculum–assessment alignment challenges.

3.2. National Assessments and Systemic Pressures

Romania’s national assessments contribute to several systemic pressures in primary and lower secondary education. As summarized in

Table 2. National Assessments in Romanian Primary and Lower Secondary Education.

Level	Assessment	Declared Function	Observed Practice/Risks
Grades II, IV, VI	EN II/IV/VI	Diagnosis, curriculum calibration	Used summatively; increased score pressure; limited instructional value
Grade VIII	EN VIII	Summative selection	Curriculum narrowing; rural inequity; heightened anxiety

UNICEF (2023) documents systemic disadvantages affecting rural, low-income, and Roma learners.

, Romania’s national assessments contribute to several systemic pressures in primary and lower secondary education.

3.2.1. Curriculum–Assessment Misalignment

Although the national competency-based curriculum emphasizes reasoning, metacognition, and problem solving, classroom assessment practices remain predominantly summative and recall-oriented. This limits opportunities for learners to demonstrate higher-order thinking and cognitive flexibility.

3.2.2. Assessment–Instruction Misalignment

Teachers report difficulty implementing formative strategies—such as learning progressions, feedback loops, micro-diagnostic practices, and differentiated rubrics—due to time constraints, insufficient training, and limited access to ready-to-use tools aligned with curricular expectations.

3.2.3. Equity–Practice Misalignment

Despite strong policy commitments to inclusion, disadvantaged students continue to receive fewer opportunities for mediated learning, scaffolding, or authentic performance tasks. These inequities reinforce socio-economic disparities highlighted in PISA 2022 and reduce the developmental potential of primary education.

Together, these gaps reveal the need for a coherent developmental framework that aligns curriculum goals, instructional practices, and assessment routines.

3.3. Distinguishing the ECEI Framework from IEP/PEI Structures

Romania formally employs Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs/PEIs) for students with special educational needs. However, these documents often function primarily as administrative requirements and rarely influence everyday instructional or assessment decisions in mainstream classrooms.

The ECEI Framework is distinct from IEP/PEI approaches in several ways:

➢

Scope: ECEI operates at the class level, supporting all learners, not only those formally identified with SEN.

➢

Content: ECEI prioritizes cognitive, metacognitive, and inclusive learning indicators rather than individualized therapeutic objectives.

➢

Function: ECEI serves as a continuous teaching–learning cycle integrated into daily routines, while the IEP is updated infrequently and seldom applied to assessment practices.

➢

Equity Orientation: By embedding inclusive assessment practices in everyday instruction, ECEI addresses structural learning gaps rather than relying on individual adaptations alone.

Thus, the ECEI Framework complements but does not replace individualized planning; it introduces a developmental, equity-oriented structure applicable to the entire classroom.

3.4. Structure of the ECEI Framework

The design of the ECEI Framework directly reflects the misalignments identified in the analytical phase.

Cognitive indicators respond to curriculum–assessment misalignment by making reasoning processes and strategy use explicit.

Metacognitive indicators address assessment–instruction misalignment by supporting self-monitoring, reflection, and learning regulation.

Inclusive indicators respond to equity–practice misalignment by ensuring flexible access pathways and reducing linguistic, sensory, or processing barriers.

Finally, formative assessment indicators operationalize alignment by embedding feedback, learning progressions, and authentic evidence into everyday classroom routines. The analysis resulted in the construction of a four-dimensional model designed to support developmental, inclusive, and cognitively oriented assessment practices:

➢

Cognitive Indicators:

Reasoning processes, strategy application, transfer of knowledge, error analysis, and explicit explanation of thinking.

➢

Metacognitive Indicators:

Goal setting, planning, self-monitoring, reflective questioning, and evaluation of strategy effectiveness.

➢

Inclusive Indicators:

Multimodal task access, differentiated scaffolding, flexible output formats, and UDL-aligned supports that reduce linguistic, sensory, and processing barriers.

➢

Assessment Indicators:

Formative checks, iterative feedback cycles, learning progressions, and authentic performance tasks that make students’ thinking visible.

Within this study, the term “innovative” does not refer to the novelty of techniques per se, but to a functional shift away from recall-oriented, summative assessment toward practices that make cognitive processes visible and support learning regulation.

Accordingly, the ECEI Framework is principle-based rather than prescriptive; the assessment methods illustrated serve as examples of operationalization, not as mandatory procedures.

These categories form the foundation of the ECEI Framework and guide teachers in planning, observing, and evaluating learning processes in diverse primary classrooms.

3.5. Discipline-Specific Illustrations

The analysis led to the construction of a four-dimensional developmental framework designed to support inclusive, cognitively oriented assessment practices in primary education.

❖

Cognitive Indicators

-

reasoning processes

-

strategy application and flexibility

-

transfer of knowledge

-

error analysis

-

explicit explanation of thinking

❖

Metacognitive Indicators

-

goal setting

-

planning

-

self-monitoring

-

reflective questioning

-

evaluation of strategy effectiveness

❖

Inclusive Indicators

-

multimodal task access

-

differentiated scaffolding

-

flexible response formats

-

UDL-aligned supports reducing linguistic, sensory, or processing barriers

❖

Assessment Indicators

-

formative checks

-

iterative feedback loops

-

learning progressions

-

authentic performance tasks that make thinking visible

As summarized in

Table 3. Traditional vs. Innovative Assessment Practices in Primary Education.

Traditional Practice	Strengths	Limits	ECEI-Oriented Alternative
Written tests	Coverage; familiarity	Recall-focused; low cognitive visibility	Open-ended authentic tasks
Oral exams	Expressive skills	Subjectivity; inconsistent criteria	Guided micro-interviews
1–10 grades	Traceability	Labels hide progression	Learning progressions
Semester exams	Synthesis	Curriculum narrowing	Portfolios
Gradebook focus	Accountability	Focus on quantity, not growth	Feedback-oriented reporting

, traditional assessment practices and their ECEI-aligned alternatives reflect distinct cognitive and formative orientations.

These illustrations demonstrate how the ECEI Framework supports everyday instructional decisions and enhances the developmental function of assessment.

3.6. Implementation Pathways

While conceptual in nature, the ECEI Framework can guide concrete instructional and assessment practices in diverse Romanian primary classrooms. Based on the alignment analysis, four priority implementation pathways are proposed:

➢

Teacher Upskilling through Micro-Credentials

Short, practice-oriented micro-credentials focused on formative assessment, cognitive strategy instruction, and UDL can support teachers in applying the framework consistently. These micro-credentials can be developed collaboratively by universities, teacher-training centers, and the Ministry of Education.

➢

Development of Resource Banks

National or local repositories of authentic tasks, learning progressions, and differentiated rubrics can reduce teachers’ workload and ensure coherence across classrooms. Such resources can draw on OECD–PISA task formats and UNICEF inclusion guidelines.

➢

Pilot Programs in Rural and Urban Schools

Piloting the ECEI Framework in a small number of varied school contexts can help refine indicators, validate developmental sequences, and inform policy recommendations. Pilots should include both mainstream and inclusive settings.

➢

Monitoring and Feedback Systems

Progress monitoring can integrate PISA-like reasoning tasks, equity audits, and classroom-based documentation (portfolios, observation notes) to examine how the framework reduces disparities and improves learning quality.

These pathways provide feasible routes for practitioners and policymakers seeking to align curriculum, instruction, and assessment in a coherent developmental model.

3.7. Discipline-Based Applications

The following discipline-specific illustrations were developed by mapping the ECEI indicator categories onto curriculum-aligned learning tasks.

Each example operationalizes cognitive, metacognitive, inclusive, and formative assessment indicators in an integrated manner, reflecting the interconnected nature of learning processes in authentic classroom contexts.

To demonstrate its practical applicability, the ECEI Framework was conceptually applied to three core curricular areas aligned with Romania’s primary education standards.

3.7.1. Mathematics: “Market Routes” (Modeling and Reasoning Task)

Purpose:

To assess mathematical reasoning, modeling, and decision-making across multiple constraints (distance, time, cost).

Task Description:

Students analyze a simple map showing three alternative routes to a local market. Each route has different attributes (e.g., a shorter but crowded path; a longer but cheaper path). Students select an optimal route and justify their decision through diagrams, tables, or oral explanations.

Cognitive Processes Targeted:

-

modeling and representation;

-

comparative reasoning;

-

evaluating alternatives;

-

explaining thought processes (metacognition).

Assessment Tools:

-

four-dimensional reasoning rubric;

-

observation grid for “thinking aloud”;

-

metacognitive prompts (“Why is your choice better than another student’s choice?”).

UDL Options:

Visual route representations, oral narration, and pair-work adaptations for SEN students.

3.7.2. Reading/Literacy: “News That Matters” (Informational Text Analysis)

Purpose:

To evaluate comprehension of informational texts, identification of essential information, and critical literacy skills.

Task Description:

Students read a short news article and then:

-

identify the main idea;

-

extract two key facts;

-

rewrite the title for a different audience (e.g., younger children);

-

highlight an opinion and justify why it is not a fact.

Cognitive Processes Targeted:

-

inferencing;

-

text structure recognition;

-

monitoring comprehension;

-

audience awareness.

Assessment Tools:

-

developmental reading progression (emerging → mastery);

-

descriptive feedback focused on strategy use;

-

student self-assessment checklist.

UDL Options:

Audio versions of the text, visual organizers, multimodal responses (drawing the main idea or making a digital retelling).

3.7.3. Science: “Clean Water for Our Class” (Inquiry and Problem-Solving Project)

Purpose:

To assess inquiry-based thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and collaborative problem-solving.

Task Description:

Students investigate the cleanliness of their classroom’s drinking water by:

-

formulating a hypothesis;

-

planning a simple test (visual clarity, smell, sediment observation, safe strips for pH/chlorine);

-

recording results in tables or diagrams;

-

presenting a recommendation to the school community.

Cognitive Processes Targeted:

-

hypothesis formulation;

-

evidence-based reasoning;

-

data interpretation;

-

communication and collaboration.

Assessment Tools:

-

inquiry rubric (question clarity, procedure, data representation, conclusion quality);

-

peer feedback forms;

-

teacher anecdotal notes.

UDL Options:

Collaborative grouping, visual data templates, verbal or digital presentation formats.

These discipline-based applications illustrate how the ECEI Framework:

-

captures thinking processes rather than final answers;

-

integrates cognitive, metacognitive, and inclusive principles;

-

supports equity through UDL;

-

aligns classroom evaluation with international competency expectations.

They provide teachers with concrete, feasible tools for developmental assessment across diverse learning profiles.

4. Discussion

The findings of this conceptual–analytical study point to structural conditions that constrain the developmental potential of assessment practices in Romanian primary education. Although the national curriculum formally endorses competency-based learning and inclusive principles, the analysis suggests that misalignments between curriculum expectations, classroom assessment cultures, and everyday instructional routines continue to shape learning opportunities. Rather than reflecting cognitive growth and learning processes, assessment practices remain largely oriented toward recall and summative judgment, which limits the visibility of students’ reasoning and contributes to persistent socio-economic disparities in achievement.

Interpreted in relation to the research questions, these findings indicate that the gap between curriculum intentions and classroom assessment is not merely procedural but conceptual. The emphasis on metacognition, reasoning, and learner agency articulated in curriculum documents is insufficiently translated into assessment routines capable of capturing these competencies. This helps explain why students may struggle with tasks requiring transfer, interpretation, and explanation, as reflected in Romania’s OECD–PISA profile, despite formal alignment with international policy frameworks. Within this context, the ECEI Framework offers a developmental interpretation of assessment as a mediating process between curriculum, instruction, and equity. Rather than introducing an additional evaluative layer, the framework reframes assessment as an ongoing cognitive–pedagogical practice that supports learning regulation, strategic thinking, and inclusive participation. By integrating cognitive, metacognitive, inclusive, and formative indicators into a unified class-level structure, ECEI provides an alternative to fragmented or procedural approaches that rely predominantly on grading or individualized compensatory measures.

From a broader policy and equity perspective, the findings align with international concerns regarding the role of assessment in inclusive education systems. UNESCO emphasizes that inclusive education requires assessment practices that support meaningful participation and learning for all students, rather than functioning primarily as mechanisms of selection or exclusion (UNESCO 2021). In a similar vein, UNICEF highlights that equitable assessment is a key condition for addressing learning disparities, particularly in contexts marked by socio-economic vulnerability, as it enables schools to respond to diverse learning needs through flexible and formative approaches (UNICEF 2023).

The distinction between the ECEI Framework and IEP/PEI structures is particularly relevant in this regard. While individualized plans play an important role for learners with formally identified needs, they often remain administratively bound and unevenly implemented in mainstream classrooms. The ECEI Framework complements these mechanisms by addressing learning diversity at the class level, reducing the risk that inclusion becomes dependent solely on individual accommodations rather than embedded pedagogical practices.

The discipline-based illustrations further clarify the practical significance of this approach. For example, in mathematics, shifting from answer-focused testing to tasks that invite explanation and error analysis allows teachers to identify reasoning strategies and misconceptions that would otherwise remain hidden. Similarly, in literacy and science, the use of multimodal responses and inquiry-oriented tasks makes it possible to observe comprehension, inference, and evidence-based reasoning across diverse learner profiles. These examples illustrate how assessment aligned with cognitive education principles can generate actionable instructional insights without increasing evaluative pressure.

At the same time, the discussion acknowledges that implementing such a framework involves notable challenges. Time constraints, uneven access to professional development, and variability between school contexts—particularly between urban and rural settings—may limit immediate adoption. Moreover, as a conceptual–analytical contribution, this study does not provide empirical validation of the framework’s impact on learning outcomes, which remains a necessary step for future research. Pilot studies and longitudinal investigations are therefore required to examine how ECEI functions in practice and how it interacts with existing assessment cultures.

From a broader theoretical perspective, the ECEI Framework contributes to international discussions on assessment, equity, and learner-centered education by emphasizing the role of formative, cognitively oriented evaluation in addressing structural inequalities. Aligning curriculum aspirations with classroom-level assessment practices emerges as a critical condition for strengthening foundational competencies and supporting more equitable learning trajectories.

In sum, this study suggests that improving learning outcomes and reducing achievement gaps depend not only on curriculum reform but on the transformation of assessment practices that mediate everyday learning experiences. By offering a coherent, developmentally oriented framework, the ECEI model provides a feasible pathway for aligning Romanian primary education with international standards of quality and inclusivity, while remaining sensitive to contextual constraints. Constructive academic dialogue and empirical exploration are welcomed as essential steps toward refining and validating this approach.

5. Implications for Policy and Practice

The findings of this conceptual analysis reveal several implications for both educational policy and classroom practice in Romanian primary education. The ECEI Framework provides a developmental, inclusive, and cognitively oriented alternative to existing assessment routines, with relevance at system, school, and classroom levels.

5.1. Implications for Policy

5.1.1. Curriculum–Assessment Coherence

Policymakers should strengthen the alignment between the competency-based curriculum and national evaluation frameworks. Reasoning, metacognition, and strategy use must be explicitly integrated into assessment guidelines to ensure that classroom practices reinforce developmental learning rather than recall-based performance.

5.1.2. Equity-Oriented Assessment Reforms

The socio-economic disparities documented in OECD–PISA 2022 highlight the need for policies that promote inclusive assessment tools, differentiated instructional supports, and regular equity audits at school and regional levels. Embedding inclusive assessment practices in national recommendations can help reduce rural–urban and socio-economic gaps.

5.1.3. National Resource Banks and Guidelines

Developing centralized repositories of authentic performance tasks, developmental rubrics, learning progressions, and UDL-aligned adaptations would offer teachers accessible tools and reduce inconsistency across schools. Such resources can support coherent implementation of the ECEI Framework.

5.1.4. Targeted Investment in Teacher Training

National teacher-training strategies should incorporate micro-credentials, mentoring, and ongoing professional development in cognitive education, formative assessment, and inclusive pedagogy. Special attention should be given to rural and high-poverty areas, where structural barriers are most pronounced.

5.1.5. Pilot and Evaluation Mechanisms

Policy reform should include pilot programs that test developmental assessment models in diverse contexts, followed by iterative refinement and longitudinal monitoring. This approach can provide evidence on how developmental assessment contributes to improved learning outcomes and reduced inequities.

5.2. Implications for Practice

5.2.1. Daily Integration of Developmental Assessment

Teachers can use the ECEI Framework as a daily tool to observe learning processes, provide actionable feedback, and plan differentiated instruction. By focusing on cognitive and metacognitive indicators, teachers can better understand how students think—not only what they produce.

5.2.2. Use of Multimodal Assessment Pathways

Offering multiple pathways for demonstrating understanding (oral, written, visual, hands-on) reduces linguistic and processing barriers and supports learners with diverse profiles, including those with SEN or emerging literacy skills.

5.2.3. Design of Authentic, Reasoning-Rich Tasks

Tasks grounded in real-life contexts encourage deeper conceptual understanding and reflect the competencies expected in OECD–PISA frameworks. Such tasks make students’ thinking visible and promote transfer across subjects.

5.2.4. Collaborative Learning and Feedback Loops

Structured peer feedback, guided discussions, and collaborative inquiry activities strengthen reasoning processes and support metacognitive growth. These practices also promote participation and inclusion in heterogeneous classrooms.

5.2.5. Documentation of Learning Growth

Tools such as portfolios, learning journals, concept maps, and anecdotal notes help teachers track developmental progress over time. These tools offer a richer picture of learning than grades alone and support instructional planning.

6. Conclusions

Romania’s OECD–PISA results reveal persistent structural challenges that shape learning outcomes and educational equity. Student performance remains below the OECD average across all domains, with only 51% of learners reaching minimum proficiency in mathematics (compared to 69% OECD average), and similarly large gaps in reading and science (16–20 percentage points). Socio-economic disparities are among the highest in Europe: socio-economic status explains 26% of performance variance, almost double the OECD average of 15%, indicating that the education system struggles to compensate for environmental disadvantages.

In addition to performance gaps, PISA results show that many students experience difficulties with the functional use of knowledge—interpreting information, applying concepts, and reasoning in unfamiliar or real-life contexts. This pattern corresponds to what OECD terms “low-level proficiency” and reflects systemic limitations in curriculum implementation, instructional practices, and assessment cultures rather than individual learner deficits.

Although the national curriculum emphasizes reasoning, metacognition, and problem solving, classroom assessment practices continue to privilege recall-oriented tasks. These practices limit opportunities for students to demonstrate higher-order thinking and hinder the development of transferable competencies evaluated in PISA. The lack of accessible formative assessment tools—such as learning progressions, structured feedback, and UDL-aligned adaptations—further restricts teachers’ ability to support students with diverse learning profiles.

These findings confirm that Romania’s challenges are systemic, resulting from misalignments between curriculum intent, instructional practices, and assessment routines. Strengthening developmental assessment approaches is therefore essential for improving learning quality and reducing achievement disparities. In this context, the ECEI Framework offers a coherent, developmentally oriented pathway for aligning classroom assessment with international expectations and supporting equitable learning trajectories for all primary school students.