Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Testing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hamilton County Board debates benchmark testing frequency, asks administration for options
Summary
Board members criticized the volume of benchmark and state testing, heard research and parental testimony, and asked administration to return with options after administrators said some redundancies have already been reduced.
Hamilton County Schools trustees spent a lengthy portion of their meeting debating the district's benchmark testing program, seeking reductions in testing time while administrators defended the role of interim assessments in guiding instruction.
Board member Mr. Daugherty opened the discussion by asking “at what cost are we pursuing this data?” and urged a collaborative review of testing frequency and burden on teachers and students. He read a letter from a fourth‑grader who described stress and multiple tests, and several board members said teachers have told them the current load is excessive.
Superintendent Dr. Robertson answered questions about the origin and purpose of the benchmarks. He said district benchmarks began in 2016 to reduce classroom variability and align instruction to standards, and that local use of benchmarks corresponded with measurable gains in some district metrics. “There’s something really valuable about . . . assessing kids against the standards so that we can adjust our instruction,” Robertson said.
Administrators provided the board with specifics and tradeoffs: benchmark testing alone accounts for roughly 1.6% of the school year (district materials cited benchmark time in hours), and the district’s contract and related costs for benchmark software and printing were reported at about $788,000 for the current year (the CASE platform and printing services were included in that figure). Staff also said some assessments (MAP and AIMSweb/AIMSweb‑style universal screeners) are state‑mandated and that the district is in its second year using MAP and AIMSweb; where overlap existed the district has already reduced redundancy, particularly in K–2.
Board member Daugherty moved to reduce benchmark testing to one administration per year for 2025–26; the motion was seconded but later withdrawn after members asked administration to draft options and consult vendors. Legal counsel and staff explained that existing board policy delegates testing procedure to the director of schools (policy 4.7) and that any change could be implemented through contract decisions or a policy amendment; the district’s CASE benchmarking contract is a one‑year agreement that can be reconsidered before renewal.
Several members cited pending state legislation that could affect public comment and testing policy; board members also referenced House bills (HB 675 and HB 91) under committee consideration. The board directed the administration to return at the next meeting with written options that include: (a) a reduction in benchmark frequency, (b) analysis of total testing time (benchmarks + state tests + screeners), (c) cost implications if the CASE contract line is changed, and (d) comparative research on best practices for assessment frequency.
Why it matters: Trustees and teachers said testing time reduces instructional time and creates stress for students; administrators said timely benchmark data supports targeted instruction. The board will decide whether to change assessment cadence, vendor arrangements, or policy before any contract renewals.
