Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Academic Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
USBE plans 90-day public comment on proposed math standards; 9th/10th-grade assessment vendor scoring set for June 24
Summary
Utah State Board of Education staff said proposed math standards will go out for a 90-day public comment period soon and discussed timelines for new math assessments. An RFP for 9th- and 10th-grade assessments drew four submissions; a scoring committee will meet June 24 to select a vendor, with a target to bring a contract to the August board.
State assessment staff told attendees that the revised math standards would be posted for a 90-day public comment period imminently and described the prospective timeline for aligning assessments and procuring vendors.
Why it matters: Changes to statewide academic standards affect curriculum, teacher preparation and the design and timing of future state assessments. Selection of a vendor for high-school assessments will determine testing platforms and development timelines for ninth- and tenth-grade assessments.
Standards and public comment Staff reported that the board approved revised math standards for release to public comment and that a 90-day comment window will be opened shortly; staff will circulate the public-comment link via AD memos and to statewide math leaders when it is available. Staff said the board-level review and any board feedback will determine the final approval timeline; if approved, assessments aligned to the new standards could be administered as early as spring 2027, though staff also said spring 2028 is possible depending on timing of final approval and development.
RFP for ninth- and tenth-grade assessments State staff said an RFP for ninth- and tenth-grade assessments closed on June 11 and drew four submissions. An RFP evaluation team will meet and finalize scoring on June 24; the procurement team will then notify selected and non-selected vendors, after which the state can announce the committee selection. Staff said the goal is to have a contract in place by the August 7 board meeting, but acknowledged the timeline could slip to September depending on procurement and vendor testing schedules. Staff emphasized a need to begin vendor development work quickly once a contractor is selected.
Other procurement and contract notes At a June board meeting staff reported the following consent-calendar actions (reported to AD meeting attendees as background): - DLM contract extension: approved (details not specified in this meeting transcript). - AI contract amendment with MGT: approved (details not specified). - WIDA contract: did not appear on the consent calendar; staff said the existing WIDA arrangements would continue through the summer and that a WIDA contract was expected to be brought to the board in August.
State staff asked ADs to watch for the public-comment link and for vendor-selection announcements after June 24.
Ending: Staff emphasized timelines are contingent on board feedback and procurement processes; ADs were asked to prepare for implementation activities if new standards and vendor contracts move forward this summer.
