We do use ANet, and it definitely hits all those criteria. Our staff don’t use the item banks and lesson plans extensively, so I can’t speak to those, but it’s extensively used for item analysis. We currently use ANet’s built-in data tools or raw data exports for item analysis, but are exploring the utility of writing Tableau reports for that purpose. Folks occasionally have complaints about specific assessment items, but on the whole the perception is the items are high quality. One other benefit of ANet is the ability to view performance against other schools in the network, to get a sort of external benchmark, and one that is more nuanced than a comparison against national mean or median.
In terms of CC alignment, we’ve found scores on ANet don’t correlate perfectly with our high stakes assessment (PARCC), but they correlate more or less as strongly as anything else does (e.g. NWEA MAP).
The computer administration experience is straightforward and simpler than PARCC or MAP, in part because it doesn’t use a locked down browser (which is a plus in our book, but could potentially be a negative if that’s important to you). We also don’t use ANet’s online administration system (rebranded Engrade) to score open ended items on the interim. In other words, we use ANet’s tools only for the selected response and technology enhanced items. If open ended item scoring as part of interim assessment were vital to you, it might be worth paying extra attention to during evaluation of the system, because it’s a little convoluted in ANet (you score the items in Engrade, but then view the results in ANet).