Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Read By Grade3 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Read by Grade 3 task force reviews assessments and portfolio exemptions; staff flag complex tradeoffs
Summary
The board heard Read by Grade 3 task-force findings on uniform assessments, portfolio-based good-cause exemptions, English-learner and special-education accommodations; staff identified complexity around cut scores, transferability of portfolios, and the intersection with procurement requirements for statewide assessments.
The State Board received an update March 12 from the Department of Education’s Read by Grade 3 task force covering four work groups that examined: (1) uniform assessments and cut-score options used by other states; (2) portfolio-based good-cause exemptions (contents, scoring, and sign-off); (3) English-learner exemption criteria; and (4) special-education considerations including the timing of alternate-assessment determinations.
Key findings: Staff told the board that many other states with mandatory retention clauses use state-specific assessments (often procured from vendors) and that portfolio exemptions typically specify a subset of standards, require multiple independent work samples, use rubrics and a minimum artifact score (commonly 70%), and require local sign-off by teachers and principals — in some states, district leaders or superintendents also sign. The task force flagged operational questions: how a portfolio would transfer if a student moves between districts/charters, what platforms would host portfolios, and what accommodations are needed for out-of-state transfers.
Legal and procurement issues: Board members and staff discussed how statute requires the board to prescribe a uniform exam while procurement rules require competitive processes for state purchases. Deputy Attorney General Gardner said the two obligations have to be reconciled in practice and suggested the regulation might describe process criteria (rather than naming a single vendor product), or the state could develop an internal instrument if funds and technical capacity are provided. Deputy Superintendent Dixon noted the department’s limited staff capacity and that creating a new state assessment internally would require additional funding and resources.
Next steps: The task force will continue refining recommendations, address unanswered technical questions (including parent-notification and appeals processes, electronic portability of portfolios, and rubrics), and propose a set of options for board consideration. Staff asked the board which elements they wanted prioritized; members requested the groups bring discrete recommendations back in smaller batches as they are ready rather than waiting for a single final package.
Representative quote: "A portfolio process typically includes 5–12 artifacts aligned to standards, rubrics setting a minimum score (commonly 70%), and required sign-off by classroom teachers and principals," staff summarized, citing Alabama, Florida and other states’ models.
Why it matters: Read by Grade 3 statutory requirements (including good-cause exemptions) affect promotion decisions for thousands of third graders, raise equity considerations for English learners and students with disabilities, and implicate assessment procurement, district capacity, and parent communication protocols.
