Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State assessment audit prompts questions about Madison’s common-assessment model and staff burden
Summary
Committee members reviewed a state-mandated assessment audit (cited as "02/1993") requiring districts to catalog assessments; Madison reported a locally developed, common-assessment structure and staff raised concerns about one-size-fits-all interpretation and staff time to compile the audit.
District staff briefed the committee on a state-directed audit of district assessments described in presentation slides as required by "02/1993," which the presenters said directs the state Department of Education to collect comprehensive information about assessments used in public school districts.
Kale, assistant superintendent, said the audit asks districts to list every assessment by grade and content area and to indicate how teachers use assessments (universal screening, formative/interim, summative, diagnostics, progress monitoring). Staff told the committee Madison extended its universal screening product from pre-K through grade 8 and that the district uses common formative and summative assessments designed and used by all teachers K–12.
"We decided to extend our universal screening using a state approved product from pre k to grade 8 in both math and ELA," Kale said. Staff described a diagnostic→intervention→progress-monitoring cycle for students who need extra support and said common performance-based summative assessments are used across grade levels and content areas in Madison.
Board members and staff discussed intent and implications of the audit. One committee member raised concerns that a legislative-driven audit could favor a “one-size-fits-all” model and risk penalizing districts with locally developed curricula and robust diagnostic approaches. Another committee member said the reporting required substantial staff time: staff named a small team (Sheng, Sheila, Michelle and Gail) that compiled the district’s response and noted the work required multiple meetings with the state and several staff days to complete the spreadsheet the state requested.
Staff also named state-standardized assessments (for example, Smarter Balanced) separately and said the audit focuses on local and interim assessments beyond required state testing. Presenters said they did not yet know how the state will use the collected information but hoped it could become a resource for practice-sharing; others warned it might be used for public-facing comparisons or policy changes.
No committee action was taken; the item was informational and generated discussion about state policy intent, local practice, and the time cost to comply with the audit.
