Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Teacher Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State board questions reading assessment pass rates and plans follow-up review
Summary
MSDE presented five years of Praxis Teaching Reading: Elementary pass-rate data and described first-time versus best-score differences; the board raised concerns about candidate loss, test validity and racial disparities and asked MSDE to compile technical manuals and member questions for possible vendor briefings.
Maryland's Professional Standards and Teacher Education Board reviewed five years of pass-rate data for the approved reading instruction assessment on Jan. 8 and asked MSDE to gather additional technical documentation and state comparisons before inviting test vendors to respond.
MSDE explained that the state requires an approved reading instruction assessment for initial licensure in early childhood, elementary, special education and ESOL (a policy in place since 2018 and codified by statute in 2021). MSDE staff emphasized reporting constraints: the department drew on ETS data for the Praxis Teaching Reading: Elementary and noted that Pearson's Foundations of Reading assessment has too few test-takers in Maryland so far to show reliable state-level pass-rate trends.
On the data: MSDE differentiated first-time pass rates from "best score" pass rates (the latter reflects a candidate's highest result after retakes) and said the data show an increase between first attempts and best scores — a pattern that indicates some candidates pass only after multiple tries. Board members raised concerns that the gap represents lost candidates in the teacher pipeline; one member said, based on the counts presented, that "that's 700 candidates that we lost."
Concerns voiced and evidence requested: Several board members said they worry the cumulative testing burden may deter candidates and that pass-rate differences raise equity and validity questions. "There are too many tests," board member Ebony said during discussion. Members asked for more context: whether alternate assessments (Pearson Foundations) show higher pass rates, what the assessment's validity evidence and norming samples look like, and comparative data from neighboring states.
Next steps: MSDE agreed to circulate the technical manual(s) for the Praxis and to compile the state transmittal memo and any materials used by the State Board when it allowed the Foundations assessment as an alternative. The chair asked board members to send specific questions to a designated point person (Ebony) so the department can determine focused vendor questions in advance if the board invites ETS or Pearson to present. "If there are concerns about assessment development or validity, we should tell vendors ahead of time so they can come prepared," MSDE staff advised.
Ending: The board did not take formal action on the assessment at the meeting but recorded a plan to gather more technical documentation, compare available state data, and bring more focused questions back for further consideration before deciding whether to invite testing vendors to testify.
