The Role of Assessment in Improving Education and Promoting Educational Equity

Abstract

Assessment is an integral core component of the educational process (learning–teaching–assessment), influencing learning and teaching. Its impact extends beyond these core elements, shaping decisions that affect students, teachers, administrators, policymakers, and the wider community. Recognizing the critical role and broad impact of assessment on educational practices, we must leverage its power to foster better education that caters to diverse multicultural learners and promotes a more equitable society. In this theoretical paper, we comprehensively explore the transformative potential of assessment focusing on culturally responsive assessment, on both teaching and learning practices, emphasizing the needs of diverse learners. We discuss possible solutions to enhance educational outcomes through assessment redesign, critically examine the barriers to implementing these solutions, and propose viable strategies to mitigate these challenges, ensuring all learners reach their full potential.

1. Introduction: Assessment as Part of Educational Practice

Learning, teaching, and assessment are interconnected components of the educational process, forming a fundamental triad. An effective educational paradigm should consider all three. While assessment is integral to this process, it often takes a leading role, influencing both teaching and learning (Foster & Piacentini, 2023; Levy-Feldman & Libman, 2022; Nasser Abu-Alhija, 2007). This paper argues that by transforming assessment practices to better serve diverse learners from different sociocultural backgrounds, we can catalyze improvements in teaching and learning, ultimately fostering a more equitable and just education system fitting our current era of globalization and diverse communities. Therefore, this theoretical study aimed to investigate the transformative potential of assessment, specifically culturally responsive assessment practices, in enhancing teaching and learning outcomes for diverse learners. The study addressed four key aspects concerning this objective. Firstly, it examines the power and impact of assessment on educational practice and equity. Secondly, it explores potential changes to assessment that can foster better education and enhance educational equity. Thirdly, the study investigates the barriers to implementing innovative assessment practices. Finally, it suggests feasible solutions to individualize assessment and meet the diverse needs of learners.

Before we elaborate, we would like to clarify the term assessment within the educational framework and be precise in the use of terms related to assessment. The literature proposes numerous definitions for the main two terms—assessment and measurement. Educational assessment has numerous definitions. Nevo’s (2002) definition characterizes educational assessment as the systematic collection of information related to the nature and quality of the assessment object. The findings of the assessment provide a comprehensive description of the assessment object, as well as value judgments related to various aspects of its quality. Pellegrino (2023) describes students’ assessment as a “tool designed to observe students’ behavior and products data that can be used to draw reasonable inferences about what students know” (p. 16). Assessment can occur in different contexts, and data are gathered using a variety of tools and methods.

The broad nature of the term “assessment” is evident in two primary functions originally defined by Scriven (1967) as summative and formative.

Summative assessment certifies student achievement and ensures accountability within the education system. During their studies and upon completion, students are evaluated to determine if they acquired the necessary knowledge and skills to progress to the next level of their education or succeed in adult life. Moreover, summative assessment provides accountability to stakeholders such as administrators, policymakers, and the public. Summative assessment typically relies on traditional assessment methods, such as tests and grading, which essentially constitute measurement. Measurement, according to Berman et al. (2019), involves assigning numbers to objects or events based on established rules. These numbers reflect the quantity, degree, or type of measured characteristics.

Formative assessment of students is designed to provide ongoing feedback to enhance learning and teaching. Students are assessed throughout the learning process to provide them and their teachers with information that facilitates improved learning and student development. To fulfill this role, assessment must provide students with specific and detailed feedback (as opposed to a numerical grade) to guide their learning. These efforts are an integral component of the learning process (Nevo, 2002). Formative assessment utilizes alternative assessment methods rather than relying solely on measurement, as is discussed in detail later in this paper.

Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge that despite public perception, assessment and measurement are not synonymous. As Berman et al. (2019) note, assessment (or evaluation1) is a broad term, encompassing measurement as one of its components, particularly within the context of summative assessment. In other words, assessment can be expressed through measurement, but it is not exclusively limited to measurement. Consequently, this paper utilizes the term “assessment” throughout.

2. The Power and Impact of Assessment on Educational Practice and Equity

In recent years, there has been increased recognition of the importance of assessment and its decisive influence on educational goals and objectives. In practice, it impacts the ‘how, what, how many, and when’ regarding the processes of teaching and learning. It has a great impact on the design of the learning and teaching culture, the teacher’s professional image, and the development of students as learners (Wiliam, 2011). Foster and Piacentini (2023) note that “what we choose to assess inevitably ends up being thought up in classrooms, therefore, assessing what matters and doing it well, should be priority for education policy” (p. 13). The OECD’s recent report (2023) provides further evidence supporting this claim, emphasizing the need to modernize education. Particularly, changes in assessment, which they called ‘next generation assessment’, can drive such adaptations in teaching and learning. Evidence of the strength of assessment can also be found in use by politicians, policymakers, educators, and others, primarily in its numerical expression (i.e., measurement). This situation stems from a 1990s concept that equated “serious” scientific research, often expressed numerically and graphically, with “serious” policy. This perception served many public figures, who found measurement as an efficient and effective method of oversight, responsibility, and policymaking. On the other hand, it was also a means of reporting educational “achievements and failures” to the broader public (e.g., Berman et al., 2019). Test results, the most common form of measurement, were connected to responsibility for economic growth and human capital, and numerical assessments conveyed a type of scientific ‘truth’ to the non-professional public. Seemingly, there is no justification for this, particularly considering the greater investment in education at a time when the public requests transparency in education. In addition, there is dissatisfaction with the functioning of the education system. The numerical expressions of student performance, mainly in large-scale tests, are often seen as an effective and persuasive mechanism for public accountability. However, in an eagerness to satisfy the public and the Ministry of Education with data, the fundamental educational responsibility for students seems to have been forgotten.

The evolution of assessment practices in education reflects these societal and political changes. Traditionally, assessment was localized and teacher-centered, often involving oral examinations or written tests tailored to specific classrooms and curricula (Vinovskis, 2019). However, the late 19th century and especially the 20th century witnessed a significant shift toward large-scale standardized tests administered by external agencies. This shift was driven by a desire for accountability, efficiency, and standardized education due to dissatisfaction with education (Brown, 2022; Levy-Feldman & Libman, 2022; Nasser Abu-Alhija, 2007; Nagy, 2000). It began primarily in the United States following the publication of two influential reports. The first, issued by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, was titled “A Nation at Risk” (1983). The second report was titled Educating Americans for the 21st Century (1983). Both reports advocated for the establishment of rigorous standards in content and skills as well as restructuring educational systems. Regarding standards and expectations, schools, colleges, and universities were encouraged to adopt more rigorous and measurable standards and higher expectations for academic performance and student conduct.

Some research has highlighted the limitations of assessment models that rely on one-size-fits-all standardized tests, particularly for diverse student populations. Recent critiques of large-scale summative assessments argue that their lack of cultural representation biases them against historically marginalized groups. Consequently, there is a growing demand for culturally responsive assessments considering students’ backgrounds, beliefs, values, experiences, and learning styles (Walker et al., 2023; Steele et al., 2024). Messick (1995) highlighted the potential for these tests to have disparate impacts on different groups, particularly marginalized students. Research has further exposed the inherent biases in standardized tests, particularly for multicultural populations (Dana, 2003; Levy-Feldman & Libman, 2022; F. J. Van de Vijver & Phalet, 2004; A. J. R. Van de Vijver & Rothmann, 2004). These biases stem from cultural differences, linguistic barriers, and socioeconomic disparities.

The validity and reliability of standardized tests have been subject to increasing scrutiny. Critics contend that these assessments often fail to comprehensively evaluate the full range of student abilities, particularly diverse learners, and may not accurately reflect their true potential. Moreover, the overreliance on standardized testing can narrow the curriculum, prioritizing test preparation over critical thinking, creativity, and socioemotional learning—essential 21st-century skills (Ercikan et al., 2023).

Research has consistently demonstrated that cultural and social factors significantly influence student performance. For instance, students attending French schools in English-dominant regions, such as Ontario, Canada, exhibit lower performance in mathematics, reading, and science than their counterparts in French-dominant Quebec, Canada (Ercikan et al., 2014). Similar disparities have been observed among other ethnic, racial, and linguistic minority groups globally (Ercikan et al., 2014; Ercikan et al., 2023).

Parental attitudes and beliefs toward education also play a pivotal role in student performance. For example, students in Asian cultures often perceive education as a primary vehicle for socioeconomic advancement, resulting in higher levels of motivation and engagement (Rotberg, 2006; Zhang & Luo, 2020). Research also suggests that students from Asia tend to exhibit higher levels of engagement, even with low-stakes assessments, compared to students from Western countries (Ercikan et al., 2020; Guo & Ercikan, 2021; Zwick, 2019). Furthermore, socioeconomic and ethnic disparities in average admissions test scores raise concerns about potential bias and inequity in the admissions process. Heavily weighting these scores may disproportionately disadvantage minority and low-income applicants (Nettles, 2019).

While significant efforts have been made to enhance the validity and reliability of large-scale assessments (Nettles, 2019; Ercikan et al., 2023), these tests continue to exert a disproportionate influence on teaching and learning practices in schools. Therefore, such assessments should only be administered when necessary, and the focus should be on what truly matters rather than what is merely convenient (Foster & Piacentini, 2023).

3. Potential Changes to Assessment to Foster Better Education and Educational Equity

When we consider the role of assessment in improving educational systems, it is imperative to acknowledge the diverse cultural backgrounds and learning styles that students bring to the classroom. A one-size-fits-all approach to assessment, which is primarily manifested by measurement, can inadvertently perpetuate inequities and hinder the progress of students from marginalized communities. Among the various solutions available, we intend to consider both those that apply to large-scale assessments and those that can be more effectively adapted to the unique needs of the classroom setting.

One of the more suitable solutions for classrooms is alternative assessment. As presented, assessment in its broader definition is not solely measurement but includes broader and richer possibilities. The use of assessment in its broader sense, which includes alternative assessments, identifies specifically with constructivist educational approaches as opposed to traditional positivist educational approaches, such as more modern and postmodern educational philosophies, which fit 21st-century education (Levy-Feldman & Libman, 2022; Shepard, 2019).

While positivist approaches to assessment, often associated with the assessment of learning, prioritize objective measurement and standardized testing to uncover a singular truth, constructivist approaches, linked to assessment for or as learning, embrace a more interpretive and critical perspective. These latter approaches promote pluralistic concepts by considering multiple criteria and perspectives (Earl & Katz, 2006; Levy-Feldman & Fresko, 2025).

Alternative assessments, distinguishable from traditional assessments that primarily rely on standardized tests, encompass a diverse range of methods, including project and problem-based assignments, portfolios, concept maps, case studies, reflective pieces, performance tasks, multimedia projects, short digests, exhibits, and presentations (Levy-Feldman & Libman, 2022). These methods are considered an integral part of the learning process and are often described as “assessment for or as learning” in contrast to “assessment of learning”, which is often associated with measurement (Earl & Katz, 2006; Levin, 2009). These methods aim to assess deeper understanding, critical thinking, and real-world application of skills, providing a more comprehensive view of students’ abilities. Effective alternative assessment embodies several key attributes, all of which must be present simultaneously (Levy-Feldman & Libman, 2022; Wiliam, 2011). Firstly, assessment should not be detached from instruction and learning processes but rather seamlessly integrated throughout the learning journey. Secondly, the primary purpose of assessment should be to enhance student learning, not serve other goals such as accountability or to solely improve teaching. Thirdly, effective assessment necessitates a collaborative and transparent process involving all stakeholders—learners, teachers, and colleagues. While teachers play a crucial role, learners must ultimately take ownership of their own assessment. Finally, the feedback provided through assessment must be specific to each student and their prior knowledge. Effective feedback is “domain-specific” (Wiliam, 2011), tailored to the individual learner’s needs, and not a one-size-fits-all approach. It should highlight the gap between the student’s current performance and their desired goals while emphasizing the specific actions required to improve future performance (Ramaprasad, 1983).

This kind of assessment is more culturally responsive, as it recognizes and respects students’ cultural backgrounds, experiences, and knowledge. It can be better executed using alternative assessments. It occurs not only at formal events but also in a variety of situations based on the specific context of the students (Baidoo-Anu et al., 2023). Furthermore, such an assessment approach would directly impact teaching, learning, and the overall school assessment culture (Levy-Feldman & Fresko, 2025; Shepard, 2019). Instead of preparing students for exams primarily focused on factual knowledge and often lacking authentic context, teachers would align instruction with learners’ backgrounds and real-world situations, better preparing them for future assessments, which is integral to the learning process. Moreover, this type of assessment is more likely to be connected to 21st-century skills such as self-directed learning, collaborative learning, information literacy, creative thinking, and critical thinking. In other words, as argued, a different assessment will also influence learning and teaching. Currently, due to the narrow, context-specific nature of assessments, which, as previously stated, is mainly manifested by measurement, particularly large-scale exams, teachers often adapt their instruction to help students succeed in these exams and in doing so, focus on narrow aspects of learning.

As for a large-scale assessment, Walker et al. (2023) address the five Principles of Culturally Responsive Assessments. These principles include—(1) Shared Power: Involve all stakeholders in the assessment process, from design to implementation; (2) Context-Rich Assessments: Create assessments that are relevant to learners’ lives and experiences; (3) High Expectations: Set high standards for all learners and provide support to help them meet those standards; (4) Flexibility: Accommodate diverse learning styles and backgrounds; (5) Asset-Based Perspective: Leverage learners’ strengths and cultural backgrounds.

As previously mentioned, while some of the suggested principles apply to various assessment contexts, we advocate for the implementation of alternative assessment methods in more focused classroom settings. This approach offers several advantages: greater relevance to learners’ lives, the capacity to assess higher-order skills, the flexibility to accommodate diverse learners and backgrounds, the potential for real-time feedback, and the ability to foster students’ unique identities.

4. Barriers to Implementing Innovative Assessment Practices

Unfortunately, in practice, changes in educational practices linked to modern educational philosophies and constructivist paradigms are primarily evident in teaching and learning. They are less noticeable in assessment, especially on a large scale, but not only. Levy-Feldman and Libman (2022) suggested several possible reasons, including the power of measurement in serving the interests of politicians and public figures. It is particularly useful in situations of oversight, accountability, and when presenting information to the public.

An additional reason for the preference for measurement over alternative assessments is the fact that implementation of this type of assessment is very demanding. It requires a change in approach and earnest effort by teachers and students. The teacher needs to invest significant amounts of time in teaching and assessing, which essentially changes their role from ‘transmitting material’ to mentoring learning (Levy-Feldman, 2018; Nasri et al., 2010). Furthermore, the teacher is not the only one with knowledge. Teaching and learning are accomplished through dialogue with the students, which can undermine the teacher’s status and power. At the same time, alternative assessments are demanding of students who must take responsibility and action in their learning, requiring significant effort to be actively involved, contributing to the establishment of assessment criteria, and constantly reflecting. In addition, parents, and others in the broader public, argue that ‘hard evidence’ is needed to know ‘what’s really happening’. Moreover, it is difficult to evaluate the quality of the alternative assessment compared to the ability to evaluate the validity and reliability of exams (Levy-Feldman & Libman, 2022; Piacentini, 2023). Other reasons for arguing that measurement is preferred over alternative assessment relate to the desire to use measurement through multi-participant tests for placement into higher education institutions (OECD, 2023). Additional reasons are rooted in the economic motives of bodies with commercial interests. These act as outsourcing for assessment processes, and they will not give up their hold on multi-participant tests that bring in money. A prime example of this can be found in several states in the U.S. (Olson, 2004; PBS, 2002). The primary interest in these outside factors is in earning profits, and they are uninterested in change.

The actual situation in many Western countries, where measurement is preferred over alternative assessments, is that the education system speaks with two voices. One is the voice of humanism, which challenges power relations in education. It is a voice of openness and flexibility that calls for meaningful dialogue and addresses differences among students. The other is a voice that expresses approaches to achievement and economic utilitarianism, a voice that reinforces accountability and oversight through narrow, one-size-fits-all standards that are easy to implement and inexpensive to monitor (Levy-Feldman & Libman, 2022). These two voices create confusion among educators and students.

Furthermore, this situation maintains the approach that emphasizes measurement, which dictates teaching and learning—an approach that educators and researchers argue has spiraled out of control.

5. Toward Desirable Outcomes: Balancing Current Reality with Feasible Solutions

To promote a desirable educational system where assessments are individualized to meet the needs of diverse learners, standardized assessments must be minimized or canceled in favor of mainly alternative assessments. However, it seems that this desirable scenario is not possible.

Several factors contribute to the continued reliance on large-scale standardized tests. These include the desire to maintain existing power structures by some stakeholders and significant economic interests within the standardized testing industry. Additionally, evaluating the quality of alternative assessment methods is challenging, especially when compared to established procedures for assessing test validity and reliability. Furthermore, standardized tests serve as a crucial mechanism for screening and placing students in higher education institutions. Finally, large-scale assessments, such as PISA, provide valuable data to governmental bodies, enabling them to monitor educational outcomes and identify system-wide trends (Hopfenbeck, 2022).

Teachers’ persistent reliance on tests for student evaluation in the classroom is partly because alternative assessment requires the teacher to invest more effort and time (Levy-Feldman & Libman, 2022). In addition, alternative assessment demands more from students. While traditional assessments often focus on memorization and recall, alternative assessments engage students in the evaluation process, prompting them to exercise judgment and reflect on their learning (Levy-Feldman & Libman, 2022).

To effectively address the multifaceted and often contradictory needs of the education system, a robust and responsive assessment framework must be established. This framework should be practical in its implementation and adaptable to the evolving needs of all stakeholders. We propose several recommendations, many of which have already been implemented in some form. However, they require further development and formalization to ensure their effective and equitable application across diverse educational contexts.

We suggest greater emphasis on alternative assessments, particularly in elementary and middle schools. Classroom teachers should administer in-class assessments at specified intervals for explicitly stated purposes. The frequency of in-class assessments should vary by grade level, with elementary school students exempt from such assessments until the latter part of elementary school. Assessment frequency shall gradually increase throughout middle and high school, always at predetermined and mutually agreed-upon times, with the purpose of the assessment being clearly articulated to both teachers and students. The use of large-scale standardized tests should be minimized, employed only when essential and fully justified, and conducted with the utmost care and rigor (Foster & Piacentini, 2023; Pellegrino, 2023). We contend that it is imperative to moderate and reduce reliance on standardized assessments of educational outcomes. Such moderation can be achieved by limiting their application to key junctures in students’ academic journeys. By doing so, we will avoid or minimize using measurements, particularly extensive testing, to define educational goals. This approach often leads to situations where teaching and learning are primarily driven by the need to meet assessment requirements, rather than assessments serving to support and enhance the educational process. According to the OECD (2023) report, this concern is not unfounded, as there are a respectable number of countries within the organization where principals use these tests to decide on educational goals and plans in their schools. The persistent pursuit of constant monitoring to ascertain “what is truly happening”—in other words, to track achievements and failures and potentially employ punitive measures against educators—offers little benefit for authentic learning and teaching. The limitations of standardized measures in accurately assessing complex learning outcomes, coupled with their potentially detrimental impact on teaching quality and the overall school climate, necessitate a more nuanced approach to assessment (Levy-Feldman & Fresko, 2025). This suggestion aligns with trends observed in some OECD countries and involves a judicious combination of assessment methods, such as Finland, England, and some states in the United States (OECD, 2019). Despite the existence of a few countries that have successfully integrated traditional and alternative assessments, systemic change is still required. A major change requires collaboration from teacher educators, teachers, school principals, educational leaders, and policymakers.

Teacher educators in pre-service programs at universities or teachers’ colleges are obligated to prepare future teachers to conduct effective student assessments. Central to this preparation is a deep understanding of assessment’s integral role within the educational process. Moreover, teacher educators must equip pre-service teachers with both traditional and alternative assessment methodologies, enabling them to design assessments that are responsive to the diverse learning needs of their students. Extensive research has consistently demonstrated a gap in educators’ understanding of assessment’s pivotal role in the teaching and learning process. Furthermore, these studies have revealed a dearth of assessment knowledge and skills among educators, indicating that student assessment practices are often guided by intuition or personal experiences rather than evidence-based methodologies (Fresko, 2013; Levy-Vered, 2013).

Teachers must re-engage with assessment practices, moving toward a dialogical and authentic approach that truly reflects student growth in the learning process. To implement this plan professionally and sustainably, teachers must acquire and develop knowledge and skills in assessment, particularly alternative assessment, which is deeply rooted in the educational act. Schelling and Rubenstein (2023) recently reported that more than half of the teachers in an elementary school indicated that they had not received assessment training as part of their teacher training. Moreover, teachers must be updated with new knowledge and current assessment options suited to 21st-century challenges (Foster & Piacentini, 2023). Teachers also require training in culturally responsive assessment. Baidoo-Anu et al. (2023) expressed the need to promote cultural validity in assessment by developing teachers’ awareness of cultural diversities, leveraging students’ everyday-life experiences as part of the assessment, allowing students’ agency in assessment, using collaborative-/participatory-assessment design, and paying critical attention to language use.

To ensure effective assessment practices, school principals must also develop their own assessment knowledge and skills during their administrative training and tenure. In addition, they should build an assessment team and appoint a school-based assessment coordinator to facilitate the integration of both external and internal assessment data. These coordinators would create and manage assessment teams, encourage assessment projects, ensure assessment is a divisional priority, provide educational opportunities for staff, and review assessment reports. The assessment coordinator would also support teachers in designing assessments aligned with specific learning objectives and student needs (Livingston & Zerulik, 2013).

Updating teachers and principals with new knowledge and skills in assessment is particularly critical considering the arrival of artificial intelligence (AI), which requires us to move from technical aspects of learning to an emphasis on understanding, analyzing, and describing problems (e.g., Martínez-Comesaña et al., 2023). This initiative can be accomplished via authentic and adapted alternative assessment. In addition to training educators in the wider and more professional use of alternative assessments, they should also be prepared to address standardized tests, since these will still exist. A comprehension of quantitative assessment requires a foundation in psychometrics. Given that many educators, teachers, and school principals lack formal training in this discipline, which concerns theoretical underpinnings and practical application of measurement instruments, they may struggle to accurately interpret quantitative data derived from tests (Brown, 2022).

To facilitate this paradigm shift, education systems, encompassing both educational leaders and policymakers, must empower schools and teachers by granting them greater autonomy and acknowledging their professional expertise. Educational leaders must steadfastly resist undue pressure exerted by politicians seeking short-term political gains through biased test data, misleading graphs, and populist rhetoric. Responsibility for evaluating student learning should be entrusted to educators with specialized assessment expertise rather than external measurement experts who may have vested economic interests. This shift necessitates empowering teachers within their classrooms, empowering principals within their schools, and providing adequate resources to support the development and implementation of effective school-based evaluation procedures. The recent 2023 OECD report underscores a concerning trend: 27 out of 33 member countries publicly disseminate high school test results through media outlets. This practice suggests ulterior motives, primarily of a political nature, as the primary function of assessment data should be to inform and enhance the teaching and learning process. In essence, educational policymakers must avoid succumbing to public opinion pressures. Furthermore, the report highlights that student performance on national tests exerts significant influence beyond individual student outcomes. In eight countries, these test results directly impact decisions made by education authorities, including the imposition of sanctions or the allocation of rewards to educational institutions. Although some countries, such as Colombia, use test scores to incentivize improvement in underperforming schools through increased funding, the impact can also be detrimental. According to the OECD, three countries explicitly acknowledge that test scores influence decisions regarding school budgets, financial rewards or penalties for schools, teacher bonuses, and even school closures. It is crucial to acknowledge that this list may not be exhaustive, as some countries may not publicly disclose how test scores influence their education systems.

As discussed, creating a significant shift in assessment that serves rather than hinders teaching and learning, emphasizes alternative assessment, and uses traditional classroom-based and large-scale standardized assessments judiciously, requires concerted effort from a wide range of stakeholders. While achieving this shift may present significant challenges, it is undoubtedly feasible. As noted, Finland serves as a compelling example, where educators seamlessly integrate alternative assessments into the daily fabric of teaching and learning (Sahlbreg, 2011). Notably, Finland also excels in international assessments based on standardized measures. Some may argue that Finland’s success cannot be replicated elsewhere due to its relatively homogenous population and limited social inequality. However, valuable lessons can be gleaned from the Finnish model, such as its prioritization of different assessment approaches and the crucial role of clear policy directives. We contend that these directives should not originate from psychometricians with vested interests in the current system, but rather from educators and assessment specialists in the education field. The Finnish system prioritizes school autonomy, empowering principals and teachers with significant decision-making authority regarding teaching, learning, and assessment. Instead of conforming to external testing pressures, schools should cultivate a culture of assessment expertise among their educators. This empowers educators and simultaneously provides policymakers with the confidence to delegate greater autonomy to schools.

In conclusion, assessment is a pivotal element within the educational triad (teaching, learning, and assessment), exerting a profound influence on both teaching and learning practices. Consequently, any significant educational reform must prioritize changes in assessment. As argued herein, transformative change, particularly toward more equitable education, is contingent upon a fundamental re-evaluation of assessment practices.