Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assessment committee reports district meets 2.2% testing limit; staff highlight scheduling, digital testing and accommodations challenges
Summary
FCPS staff reviewed the District Committee on Assessment's work, said required tests comply with the More Learning, Less Testing Act 2.2% cap, and discussed challenges including overlapping testing windows, device availability in early grades, digital testing design issues and accommodations for students with disabilities.
Frederick County Public Schools staff told the Curriculum & Instruction Committee on June 11 that the District Committee on Assessment reviewed the district’s required testing and found the district met the statutory cap on required assessments: no more than 2.2% of instructional time (with an additional 0.1% for grade 8 for social studies, per the state law).
Dr. Vedder, director of assessment, data reporting and strategic improvement, described the committee’s role: cataloging required assessments, applying a seven‑area rubric (purpose, alignment to standards, feedback value, accessibility, time required, administration and timeliness of results) and recommending refinements. Staff explained the committee’s working definition of required assessments includes federally, state‑ or district‑mandated measures that evaluate academic readiness, learning progress or skills.
Staff outlined three practical challenges raised by teachers and committee members: overlapping testing windows from multiple vendors; device availability for digital assessments, especially in kindergarten through grade 2 where one‑to‑one device ratios were reduced this year; and the time teachers need to prepare for and administer assessments. Dr. Vedder noted some teachers asked for more control of local assessments and a mix of paper‑and‑pencil options where appropriate.
Committee members raised the impact of digital testing design on student behavior and scores. Dr. Vedder cited an example from the state Algebra I exam where a student could not advance after selecting partial responses to a multi‑part question and the platform’s prompts were perceived as misleading. Board members and staff agreed that local assessments offer more control and can be designed with a balance of digital and paper formats to support writing and other tasks that benefit from paper input.
The district confirmed that some screen‑based assessments include accessibility features, and vendors must meet state accessibility expectations. Staff said the digital platforms can provide assistive technology (text‑to‑speech, dictation) and that the district’s augmentative communication and technology team is available when district or vendor features are insufficient. On special education, Vedder said the district uses “multiple measures” to triangulate performance and uses national vendor data (where available) to understand students’ needs without supports as one comparison point; state testing platforms also include built‑in supports where appropriate.
Staff emphasized scheduling complexity: national vendor windows (used to preserve national norms) sometimes require narrow local administrative windows, and the district posts local assessment calendars publicly. They reiterated that the committee’s work is cyclical and required by the More Learning, Less Testing Act of 2017 to include stakeholders and report to the board every other year.
No formal policy changes were voted on at the meeting. Discussion included next steps to review overlaps, consider increased use of paper‑based local assessments where pedagogically appropriate, and continue collaboration with teachers and the Frederick County Teachers Association when local flexibility is sought.
