Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee warns math benchmark funding absent; LEAs could face costs if state doesn't fund assessment
Summary
Board staff told the committee that state funding for a proposed K–3 math benchmark was not approved and the Acadience contract is expiring; staff outlined options including requiring LEAs to pay or pursuing a new procurement, and gave cost estimates for digital and manual administration.
The committee spent an extended part of its meeting on R277406, amendments to the early learning and benchmark-assessment rule, focused on whether a statewide math benchmark will be funded.
Theresa McIntyre, assessment development coordinator, told the committee that the state did not receive additional funding for the math benchmark and that the current contract has expired: “we do not have any funding for a math benchmark at this point.” She said staff have an RFP prepared but are holding it pending funding.
McIntyre gave two administration-cost figures the committee discussed: a digital license that most LEAs use currently costs about $5.95 per student, and a lower-cost paper-entry option was offered under an earlier, deeply discounted contract at about $1.50 per student. Amy Hunt, assistant superintendent, warned the committee that Acadience has indicated it may not continue that low $1.50 price.
Staff said alternative assessments have been estimated at roughly $7 per student and that procurement advice is needed about whether the current contract could be extended for another year. Julie Clark (P–12 English learners coordinator) and McIntyre emphasized the value of continuing a single statewide screener for comparability across LEAs; without state funding, LEAs could return to varied local assessments and the systemwide ability to measure trends would be weakened.
Board members pressed staff to obtain precise cost estimates before the rule moves to the full board; one member asked for numbers the committee could use in legislative requests. Staff agreed to query procurement and Acadience about extension options and to report back to the committee before the board vote.
The committee ultimately approved the amended R277406 draft on first reading and forwarded it to the full board; members directed staff to return with procurement and cost information that will inform next steps.
