Editorial
The landscape of education and…
by Alex Toh Yong Chen, N4 Cluster Assessment Champion
N4 Assessment Literacy and Leadership (ALL): Navigating a Three-Body System
- Learning to Walk Together
Early one Sunday morning, I agreed, somewhat reluctantly, to help my neighbour walk her dog. I had brought my own two along, expecting the usual quiet route around the estate. Within minutes, I realised I had made a serious miscalculation. The first dog charged after every pigeon in sight. The second inspected each drain cover with the solemnity of a detective. The third, my neighbour’s anxious terrier, kept glancing back at me as if asking, “Are you really in control here?”
The three leashes tangled around my legs. A cyclist swerved sharply to avoid us. Halfway through this chaotic dance, I stopped and simply observed. Tugging harder made everything worse; loosening too much created a different kind of mess. Eventually, I shifted my stance, eased tension here, held firmness there, and allowed each dog a bit of space to move within boundaries. It wasn’t elegant, but it worked. We found an uneasy rhythm that allowed us to continue walking forward.
That morning stayed with me because it felt uncannily like the work of building assessment literacy in the N4 cluster. In our ecosystem, leaders, teachers, and students are the three bodies tugging in different but legitimate directions. Trying to enforce perfect alignment rarely works. Understanding the tensions, responding with awareness, and adjusting one’s position at the right moments, that is what moves the system.
This article is an attempt to tell the story of how N4 schools learned to walk together, not because their paths were identical, but because their rhythms began to attune to one another.
- Assessment as a Cultural and Relational Practice
Anyone who has worked closely with assessment knows this truth: assessment is never just a technical activity (Sadler, 1989). It reflects what a school values, how teachers interpret their professional responsibilities, and how students see themselves as learners (Schein, 2010; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Assessment is widely understood as a moral and cultural practice shaped by value judgments, shared beliefs, and relationships. (Sadler, 1989; Schein, 2010). A rubric, a piece of feedback, or a success criterion is never neutral, it carries assumptions about what matters (Sadler, 1989; Brookhart, 2007). From an assessment literacy perspective, this means that teachers must be able to exercise informed professional judgment when interpreting evidence of learning and deciding how to respond instructionally (Tan, 2011).
When the N4 cluster began its journey, this cultural dimension emerged quickly. Leaders believed clarity had already been established. Teachers believed expectations were shifting too fast. Students believed feedback was for correction rather than growth. These were not disagreements about strategy; they were differences in worldview.
Over time, it became clear that what we needed was not just alignment of practices, but alignment of meaning (Spillane, 2005; Fullan, 2021).
- Three Helpful Images: The Mirror, the Handle, and the Lever
As we began structuring professional conversations across the cluster, three metaphors consistently surfaced to frame our collective learning. They became organising images that helped us interpret what we were seeing on the ground.
3.1 The Mirror: Seeing What Is Really There
The mirror represented our early stage of work: facing the reality of our assessment culture without defensiveness or euphemism. Through file checks, lesson observations, student artefacts, and feedback ratings, we saw uncomfortable patterns:
- Students received feedback but often could not use it.
- Teachers were giving extensive comments but were unsure if they improved learning.
- Leaders believed clarity existed, but teachers and students experienced inconsistency.
The mirror made visible the gap between intentions and experiences.
3.2 The Handle: Pulling on Tools and Techniques
The instinctive next step was to do something. Schools introduced success criteria, rubrics, peer feedback routines, marking codes, progressions, and professional conversations. These “handles” helped, but not always in predictable ways. Some tools improved clarity; others increased workload. Some departments moved quickly; others needed more time.
The handle stage taught us that effort without cultural understanding can create new tensions even as it resolves others (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).
3.3 The Lever: Small Shifts That Move the System
After extended inquiry cycles, some schools began to experience leverage moments: a revised feedback cover sheet that shifted student agency, a clearer success criterion that reduced misunderstanding, a Professional Learning Team (PLT) conversation that deepened teachers’ professional judgment.
Leverage moments were seldom dramatic. They were the quiet, cumulative shifts where relationships, routines, and meaning began to align (Fullan, 2021).
- The Three-Body Problem: Why Tension is Normal, not a Sign of Failure
To make better sense of the complexity, we borrowed a metaphor from physics: the three-body problem, which describes what happens when three bodies interact under gravitational pull. With two bodies, the orbit is predictable. With three, the system becomes nonlinear — small changes can produce surprising outcomes. No stable formula governs their movement.
This metaphor captured the lived experience of N4 schools.
4.1 The Leader’s Pull
Leaders carry responsibility for coherence, comparability, and direction. They expect alignment and clarity, often motivated by fairness for students and accountability to the system.
4.2 The Teacher’s Pull
Teachers navigate classroom realities — timing, workloads, lesson pacing, mixed readiness levels, and the emotional work behind feedback. They value professional judgment and the freedom to adapt strategies to their students.
4.3 The Student’s Pull
Students want clarity, psychological safety, and relevance. They are honest when asked whether feedback is useful. They can destabilise assumptions teachers have held for years.
4.4 When These Forces Interact
- Leaders tightening structures may increase teacher stress.
- Teachers simplifying tasks may reduce student clarity.
- Students expressing confusion may be interpreted differently by leaders and teachers.
These tensions are natural. They reveal where the system is learning. They are not signs of failure but signals of recalibration (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Fullan, 2021).
- Navigating Tensions in the N4 Cluster: School Stories and System Learning
What follows in this paper is not a technical account. It is a narrative of how six schools in the N4 cluster confronted their mirrors, experimented with handles, discovered leverage, and learned to work within the messy, beautiful interdependence of a three-body system.
Each school’s story is presented in its own voices, sometimes hopeful, sometimes frustrated, always grounded in practice. Together, the stories illuminate cluster-level patterns that speak to deeper questions of culture, leadership, and professional growth.
Most importantly, these stories show that assessment literacy is not something you implement.
It is something you become, together.
Across the N4 cluster, every school began with different histories and priorities. Yet each school encountered recurring patterns of tension among leaders, teachers, and students. These tensions did not impede progress; instead, they served as catalysts for deeper professional learning and cultural change.
To preserve narrative flow while honouring the distinct voices and contexts of each school, the detailed school-level accounts have been moved to Annex A. Table 1 below provides a cross-school synthesis of key challenges and leverage points, while the annex allows readers to engage with each school’s story in full, with authorship clearly attributed.
Table 1: Cross-School Patterns in the N4 Assessment Literacy Journey
5.1 Cluster-Level Patterns: How Tensions Became Sources of Learning
Working across these six schools revealed that although each experienced tensions differently, common patterns emerged that shaped cluster identity and shared learning.
5.2 Variation in Pace and Readiness
Schools moved at different speeds. Some had strong pre-existing structures; others were building capacity. This variation created tension in cluster meetings but eventually surfaced as a strength. Schools learned from one another’s differences.
5.3 Interpretation Differences
Even when working with shared tools, such as Receptivity to Instructional Feedback (RIF), feedback cover sheets, or success criteria, schools interpreted and enacted them differently. This confirmed Spillane’s insight that policy messages are always mediated by local sensemaking (Spillane, 2005). These variations provided rich opportunities for cross-school dialogue.
5.4 The Role of Students in Stabilising the System
As practices matured, student agency emerged as a stabilising force. When students could articulate next steps and rate feedback meaningfully, teachers gained clarity and leaders gained confidence in the system’s direction.
5.5 The Emergence of Professional Capital
Teacher-led inquiry and shared examination of artefacts developed decisional capital across schools. Hargreaves and Fullan remind us that sustainable improvement grows from human, social, and decisional capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). This was evident in N4 as schools shared, adapted, and experimented with strategies.
- Working With Tensions, Implications for Practice, and Conclusion
6.1 Working With Tension Instead of Eliminating It
One of the most significant insights from the N4 cluster journey is that tensions are not obstacles to be removed. They are features of the system that reveal where attention is needed (Fullan, 2021; Kotter, 1996). When understood with care, tensions become sources of information that help leaders and teachers make informed decisions.
Across the cluster, schools eventually recognised that tensions among leaders, teachers, and students were not indicators of misalignment or inadequacy. They were signals that learning was taking place at multiple levels. As these tensions surfaced, the work became less about troubleshooting and more about interpretation.
6.2 Leader Tensions: Coherence and Professional Autonomy
Leaders often faced the delicate challenge of providing direction while also supporting teachers’ professional agency. When leaders emphasised coherence too strongly, teachers felt restricted. When they stepped back too much, teachers struggled to see the broader purpose of the work. The tension lay in finding a balance between clarity of expectations and respect for contextual variation.
Schools discovered leverage when leaders reframed direction not as compliance but as shared purpose. This shift allowed teachers to interpret guidelines according to the needs of their students, creating practices that were both aligned and responsive. Coherence grew not from control but from communication and trust.
6.3 Teacher Tensions: Pedagogical Integrity and Practical Realities
Teachers experienced tensions most directly. They wanted to maintain high expectations for learning, but they also needed manageable routines. They valued structured feedback cycles, yet they also wanted flexibility to adapt these routines to their subject areas.
Teachers found leverage when they began to evaluate their feedback through the lens of student experience rather than through the tools themselves. This shift in orientation allowed teachers to focus on whether students understood and used feedback, which often reduced workload by eliminating unnecessary practices.
6.4 Student Tensions: Agency and Security
Students wanted clarity and ownership, but they also needed psychological safety. Some were enthusiastic about self-assessment, while others were hesitant. Some wanted more autonomy, while others preferred guidance.
Students found leverage when teachers provided models, scaffolded routines, and opportunities to practise using feedback. As students grew more comfortable with reflective work, they became more confident learners. Their agency eased teacher workload and provided leaders with evidence of system movement.
6.5 System Leverage Through Shared Language
Working through tensions required a shared vocabulary. The cluster adopted a common focus on clarity, student agency, feedback literacy, and artefact-based inquiry. This shared language enabled schools to communicate across differences and learn from one another’s practices without forcing uniformity.
In this way, tensions helped the cluster develop coherence. They revealed patterns, highlighted needs, and guided decisions. Instead of being suppressed, tensions were used as levers for improvement.
- Implications for Schools and Clusters
The N4 cluster experience provides several lessons for educators who hope to develop assessment literacy within their own contexts.
7.1 Begin With Shared Principles
Tools and templates have their place, but they cannot substitute for shared beliefs about learning. When schools anchor their work in principles such as clarity, student agency, and purposeful feedback, tools become aids rather than ends in themselves.
7.2 Create Space for Teacher Sensemaking
Professional growth occurs when teachers examine real student work and discuss it with colleagues. Structures such as Professional Learning Teams, artefact discussions, and feedback cover sheet analyses provide opportunities for teachers to interpret student responses and refine their practice. These processes build decisional capital, helping teachers make informed choices independently.
7.3 Involve Students Early and Consistently
Students are not passive recipients of feedback. They are partners in learning whose responses shape the entire system. When students understand learning intentions, co-construct success criteria, and evaluate their own progress, they contribute to a more stable assessment culture.
7.4 Support Leaders to Guide with Purpose and Flexibility
Leaders play a crucial role in shaping the direction of assessment. Their influence is strongest when they articulate clear values, provide supportive structures, and trust teachers to adapt strategies to their contexts. Coherence grows when leaders facilitate inquiry rather than prescribe uniformity.
7.5 Treat Assessment as Cultural Work
Assessment is not only a technical practice. It shapes identity, relationships, and expectations. When schools view assessment through a cultural lens, professional learning becomes more meaningful. The work shifts from implementing tools to cultivating values such as compassion, reflection, and growth.
7.6 Appreciate Variation Without Abandoning Direction
Every school interprets assessment frameworks differently. Variation is inevitable and can be productive. Clusters benefit when they recognise these differences as opportunities for mutual learning rather than as inconsistencies to be corrected.
- Learning to Move as One
The N4 cluster’s journey through assessment literacy and leadership has been characterised by ongoing movement. Leaders, teachers, and students each brought their own perspectives, needs, and instincts to the work. These differences created tension, but they also created opportunity.
Like walking three dogs, the challenge was not to exert more control but to learn how to respond to movement. Leaders learned to hold direction with a light but steady hand. Teachers learned to adapt routines in ways that honoured both professional judgment and student needs. Students learned to take ownership of their learning, providing the system with clarity and stability.
With time, patience, and inquiry, the three bodies did not collapse into each other or drift apart. Instead, they developed an uneasy but meaningful rhythm. They learned to move with purpose.
This experience has revealed that assessment literacy is not a checklist of practices. It is a cultural identity that schools develop together. It grows when feedback is interpreted not only as information but as a form of care. It deepens when teachers and leaders examine student artefacts to understand what students truly experience. It strengthens when students become active agents of their learning.
Most importantly, assessment literacy grows when schools recognise the value of tension and begin to use it as a lever for improvement. As the N4 cluster discovered, progress does not come from eliminating differences. It comes from understanding them.
The journey continues. As new challenges arise and as schools build upon the foundations they have established, the relationships among leaders, teachers, and students will continue to evolve. The hope is not to achieve perfect alignment but to sustain a culture of inquiry, responsiveness, and humanity.
The cluster has learned to walk together. And in that shared movement, it has taken an important step toward building a dynamic and compassionate assessment ecosystem for all learners.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to acknowledge the use of OpenAI’s ChatGPT as a proofreading and editorial support tool. ChatGPT was used to refine the clarity, coherence, and structure of the manuscript, including suggestions on organisation, tone, and integration of conceptual metaphors. All interpretations, revisions, and final arguments presented in this article remain the author’s own.
Transparency Statement
Portions of the manuscript were refined with the assistance of ChatGPT for grammar, organisational clarity, and structural coherence. The tool did not generate content independently; all ideas, examples, and interpretations originated from the author.
Reference List
Brookhart, S. M. (2007). Feedback that fits. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 54–59.
Fullan, M. (2021). The right drivers for whole system success. Centre for Strategic Education.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. Educational Forum, 69(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984678
Tan, K. H. K. (2011). Assessment for learning in Singapore: Unpacking its meanings and identifying some areas for improvement. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 10, 91–103.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
Annex A: School Narratives in the N4 Assessment Literacy Journey
The following school accounts illustrate how assessment literacy tensions surfaced across the N4 cluster and how schools found leverage by working through them. Each narrative reflects the school’s local context and was developed with input from the respective school lead(s) through the sharing of their school stories, with editorial support for coherence. Descriptions of challenges reflect developmental learning moments, not evaluations of effectiveness.
Detailed artefacts and supporting materials referenced in these narratives can be found here:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1XPQsYaCCvv5QzgS78Hp8I7SNrzISvxuH?usp=sharing
A1. Anchor Green Primary School: Clarifying Purpose and Strengthening Student Agency
With input from:
Lim-Neo Lay Pin, Noraisha, Mark Reutens, Lee Khai Yin, Ang Gek Moi, Neoh Wee Ling, Polly Yun, Zen Ng
1.1 Context
Anchor Green Primary School approached assessment literacy as a way of strengthening teaching and learning rather than merely measuring progress. Grounded in the belief that assessment should be for and as learning, the school emphasised involving students actively in understanding goals, criteria, and feedback. Prior initiatives had established a foundation through rubric design, professional development led by teacher leaders, and modular learning units. However, leaders and teachers recognised that established routines did not always translate into meaningful student use of feedback.
1.2 What the school noticed
Teachers invested significant effort in written and verbal feedback, yet students did not consistently act on it. Some students focused primarily on marks, while others required repeated clarification to understand what improvement looked like. For teachers, this created uncertainty about whether time spent on feedback was having the intended impact. There was also recognition that traditional feedback practices, while familiar and comfortable, risked becoming performative rather than transformative.
1.3 What the school tried
The school refocused its efforts on clarity, coherence, and student agency. Professional development was deliberately structured around shared understandings of assessment literacy, with leaders and teacher leaders modelling practices and facilitating dialogue across departments. Success criteria were made more explicit, and students were guided to reflect on feedback using structured prompts and symbols to indicate understanding. In selected contexts, teachers experimented with alternative feedback modes, including oral and video feedback, to reduce cognitive load and make feedback more accessible. Professional learning teams piloted feedback pedagogy cycles that foregrounded feed up, feedback, and feed forward, supported by artefacts such as checklists, reflection forms, and scaffolded worksheets.
1.4 What shifted
Over time, students became clearer about expectations and more confident in responding to feedback. Teachers observed improved quality in revisions and greater student ownership of learning. Feedback conversations became more focused and purposeful, and professional discussions shifted from compliance with routines to examination of impact. Leaders noted greater coherence across departments without enforcing uniformity.
1.5 Key learning
Anchor Green’s experience illustrates the importance of redesigning feedback with the learner in mind. When assessment practices prioritise clarity, usability, and student involvement, effort is redirected from producing feedback to enabling learning, strengthening both professional confidence and student agency.
A2. Maris Stella High School (Primary): Building Coherence Through Inquiry and Professional Judgment
With input from:
Yew Su Fong, Koh Ee Beng, Ng Kha Ghee, Sharmini Jayasughavanagopal, Leong Mei Lian, Sivagami Alagappan, Ang Poh Qin
2.1 Context
Maris Stella High School (Primary) embarked on its assessment literacy journey with a strong emphasis on professional reflection and coherence across subjects. While teachers were committed to supporting learning beyond grades, there was recognition that practices varied widely across departments and classrooms. The school sought to develop shared understandings of assessment that respected subject identities while strengthening consistency in how students experienced feedback and reflection.
2.2 What the school noticed
As assessment practices were surfaced and discussed, differences in interpretation became more visible. Teachers understood assessment literacy in diverse ways, shaped by subject traditions and prior experiences. While some practices supported deep learning and student reflection, others remained focused on task completion or correctness. Students, in turn, encountered uneven expectations, which sometimes affected their ability to engage confidently with feedback and self-assessment. These variations prompted reflection on how professional growth could be supported without reducing assessment to a set of uniform procedures.
2.3 What the school tried
The school adopted inquiry cycles as a central professional learning strategy. Teachers engaged in structured conversations around classroom artefacts, such as feedback samples, reflection sheets, and student work, to examine how assessment practices were enacted and received. Feedback cover sheets and reflective prompts were introduced to help students make sense of expectations and monitor their own learning. Professional learning teams provided a space for teachers to surface assumptions, test ideas, and refine practices collectively. Rather than prescribing a single model, leaders focused on building shared language and principles that could be interpreted meaningfully within different subjects.
2.4 What shifted
Over time, teachers developed greater confidence in exercising professional judgment and articulating the rationale behind their assessment decisions. Conversations shifted from questions of compliance to deeper discussion about impact and student understanding. Students became more familiar with reflective routines and clearer about success criteria, enabling them to engage more purposefully with feedback. While diversity in practice remained, it was increasingly underpinned by common intent and shared understanding.
2.5 Key learning
Maris Stella’s experience demonstrates that coherence in assessment literacy is built through sustained inquiry rather than standardisation. By creating space for professional dialogue and collective sensemaking, the school strengthened both professional confidence and student engagement while preserving subject identity.
A3. Mee Toh School: Strengthening Feedback Usability Through Student Voice
With input from:
Sim Kun Kin, Lim Shoa Koen, Sherley A, Neo Li Ting, Hafizah Binte Kamis, Sim Tze Mei
3.1 Context
Mee Toh School approached assessment literacy as an opportunity to improve how feedback supports learning in everyday classroom practice. While teachers were committed to providing feedback regularly, there was growing recognition that the presence of feedback did not always lead to improvement in student work. The school sought to understand how feedback was experienced by students and how assessment practices could be refined to better support clarity, engagement, and follow-through.
3.2 What the school noticed
Teachers observed that students often acknowledged feedback without fully understanding how to use it. Some students relied heavily on teachers to interpret comments for them, while others focused primarily on grades rather than learning intentions. Although feedback was thoughtfully crafted, its impact varied across classes and subjects. This prompted reflection on whether feedback practices were designed with sufficient attention to student readiness and perspective. Teachers also recognised that they had limited insight into how students perceived the usefulness of the feedback they received.
3.3 What the school tried
To address this, the school placed greater emphasis on student voice in the feedback process. Teachers introduced simple, structured ways for students to indicate their understanding and the usefulness of feedback, such as rating feedback clarity and identifying areas they felt confident or uncertain about. These responses provided teachers with immediate insight into how feedback was received. Professional discussions increasingly centred on student responses to feedback rather than on the feedback itself. Teachers also revisited how learning intentions and success criteria were communicated, ensuring that feedback was anchored clearly to expectations that students understood.
3.4 What shifted
Over time, feedback became more focused and accessible to students. Teachers reported clearer signals about which aspects of feedback supported learning and which required refinement. Students became more willing to engage with feedback and to articulate what they needed in order to improve. Classroom conversations shifted towards improvement strategies rather than explanations of teacher comments. Across the school, there was greater alignment in how feedback was framed and used, without imposing rigid uniformity.
3.5 Key learning
Mee Toh School’s experience highlights the importance of designing feedback with the learner in mind. When student responses are treated as valuable information for teachers, feedback practices become more responsive, usable, and supportive of learning.
A4. Montfort Junior School: Building Coherence Through Feedback and Formation
With input from:
Low Qiao Meng, Tan Yi Ying Bettina, Muhammad Nizam B Shahri, Wong Zhi Wei Amanda, Samsina Herbert
4.1 Context
Montfort Junior School situated its assessment literacy journey within a broader commitment to formation and holistic development. While teachers shared a strong desire to move beyond marks and testing, practices across levels and subjects varied in how feedback was designed and enacted. The school sought to strengthen coherence in assessment practices while remaining attentive to students’ learning experiences and teachers’ professional judgment.
4.2 What the school noticed
Teachers observed that feedback routines were often implemented with good intent but uneven impact. In some cases, feedback became procedural, with students completing tasks or corrections without fully understanding how feedback supported improvement. Lower-progress students, in particular, struggled to interpret written feedback or retain verbal feedback once lessons ended. Teachers also recognised that while feedback tools were available, students were not always sufficiently scaffolded to engage meaningfully with them.
4.3 What the school tried
The school focused on refining feedback pedagogy through full feedback cycles that emphasised feed up, feedback, and feed forward. Teachers examined classroom artefacts together, such as feedback cover sheets, student reflection tools, and revised worksheets, to understand how students responded to feedback. In lower primary, simplified tools were introduced to help students signal understanding and uncertainty more clearly. Departments experimented with aligning feedback practices to schemes of work and lesson packages, ensuring that feedback was anchored to clear learning intentions and success criteria. Professional dialogue became a key lever, with conversations centred on student work and evidence of learning rather than on compliance with templates.
4.4 What shifted
Over time, teachers reported greater clarity in how feedback was designed and used. Students became more familiar with reflective routines and more confident in responding to feedback, particularly when tools were developmentally appropriate. Feedback conversations shifted towards improvement and next steps, and teachers were better able to adjust instruction based on students’ responses. Across the school, there was increased coherence in assessment practices without enforcing uniformity, as shared principles guided local adaptation.
4.5 Key learning
Montfort Junior School’s experience highlights the importance of grounding assessment literacy in both pedagogical clarity and care for learners. When feedback practices are intentionally designed, scaffolded, and examined through professional dialogue, assessment becomes a means of supporting learning and formation rather than a procedural exercise.
A5. Nan Chiau Primary School: Strengthening Alignment Through Structured Feedback Cycles
With input from:
Lim Kiang Shiang, Tan Si Yu Elista, Ng Ai-Ching Elizabeth, Norliza Ahmad, Ng Yick Kit
5.1 Context
Nan Chiau Primary School approached assessment literacy as a school-wide effort to strengthen clarity, coherence, and consistency in how learning was supported across subjects. The school emphasised a shared understanding of assessment purposes and sought to align classroom practices with clearly articulated learning intentions and success criteria. While structures and frameworks were in place, the school recognised the need to ensure that assessment practices were enacted meaningfully in daily teaching and learning.
5.2 What the school noticed
Teachers observed variation in how feedback was understood and used by students. While feedback was frequently provided, some students required repeated explanation to act on it, particularly in writing and extended response tasks. Teachers also noted differences in how departments approached feedback cycles, leading to uneven student experiences. Although students could often identify strengths and areas for improvement, translating feedback into concrete next steps was not always consistent.
5.3 What the school tried
The school focused on strengthening the full feedback cycle across subjects. Teachers clarified learning intentions and success criteria at the outset of lessons and used structured feedback tools to support student reflection. In writing tasks, feedback was anchored to specific criteria, and students were guided to identify how feedback informed revisions and future work. Student feedback rating tools were introduced to gather insight into how feedback was perceived and whether it supported learning. Departments engaged in professional dialogue around student work and feedback artefacts to refine practices collectively and calibrate expectations.
5.4 What shifted
Over time, teachers reported greater alignment in how feedback was framed and followed through. Students became clearer about expectations and more confident in responding to feedback, particularly when reflection and feedforward routines were made explicit. Teachers were better able to identify common areas for improvement and adjust instruction accordingly. Across the school, assessment practices became more coherent without constraining professional judgment or subject-specific approaches.
5.5 Key learning
Nan Chiau Primary School’s experience highlights the value of structured feedback cycles in strengthening alignment. When assessment practices are consistently anchored to clear expectations and supported by student reflection, feedback becomes a more effective tool for learning and improvement.
A6. North Spring Primary School: Sustaining Assessment Literacy Through Systematic Routines
With input from:
Zainab Haron, Joyce Ye Meitian, Tan Mui Hiang, Ku Seow Yen
6.1 Context
North Spring Primary School approached assessment literacy as a long-term, school-wide effort to strengthen consistency, sustainability, and student involvement in assessment practices. Anchored in a shared assessment vision, the school sought to ensure that assessment supported learning at every level while remaining manageable for teachers and meaningful for students. The focus was on building strong foundations before extending assessment literacy practices more deeply into classroom routines and student learning experiences.
6.2 What the school noticed
Teachers observed that while assessment structures and guidelines were in place, the quality of enactment varied across levels and classrooms. Some feedback practices were dependent on individual teacher expertise, leading to uneven student experiences. Students were often clear about task requirements but less confident in articulating learning goals or using feedback to guide improvement independently. There was also recognition that without sustained routines, assessment practices risked becoming fragmented over time.
6.3 What the school tried
The school adopted a phased and systematic approach to developing assessment literacy. Early efforts focused on establishing a balanced assessment vision and strengthening teachers’ foundational competencies in assessment design and feedback. Professional learning was organised through structured lesson study, targeted learning gap cycles, and collaborative platforms that enabled teachers to examine assessment artefacts together. Clear learning intentions and success criteria were emphasised, and students were gradually introduced to self- and peer-assessment routines. Feedback practices were refined to support full feedback cycles, with deliberate attention to feed up, feedback, and feed forward. As practices matured, assessment literacy was extended to involve students more actively in goal-setting, reflection, and monitoring of learning.
6.4 What shifted
Over time, assessment practices became more consistent and embedded across the school. Teachers reported greater confidence in designing assessments and using assessment information to inform instruction. Students became more active participants in the assessment process, demonstrating improved clarity about expectations and greater ownership of learning. Feedback conversations increasingly focused on improvement and next steps, supported by shared routines and common language.
6.5 Key learning
North Spring Primary School’s experience highlights the importance of sustained routines in building assessment literacy. When assessment practices are developed progressively and reinforced through systematic structures, they support both teacher confidence and student agency, enabling assessment to function as a driver for learning over time.