East Brunswick Board hears district assessment results as state moves to adaptive testing

The East Brunswick Board of Education received a detailed report on district student assessment results and the state’s planned switch to adaptive testing at its meeting on Sept. 18.

The district’s presenter outlined that districtwide English language arts proficiency was 66% last year compared with the state average of 53%, while math proficiency was 61% against a state average of 42%. The presenter called attention to notable subgroup disparities: “general enrollment students are at 81% proficiency in ELA, students with disabilities are at 20%, multilingual learners at 5% and economically disadvantaged students at 47%,” the presenter said.

The board was told New Jersey is moving this testing cycle from the current NJSLA format to an adaptive test. The presenter said the state will field-test an adaptive version in the fall and administer a full adaptive assessment in the spring, and that the vendor relationship is changing from Pearson to Cambium for the adaptive platform. The presenter cautioned the board that first-year reporting from a new assessment often lacks the stability of established measures: “I’m hesitant to commit to anything until we understand the reporting structure of the new adaptive test and what that might look like,” the presenter said.

Board members pressed for details about timing and local preparation. One member asked whether school testing coordinators had received training; the presenter responded that coordinators had begun technical training through the state but that the district had not yet received full guidance on the student experience and reporting format. The field test window and state-directed trainings were described as upcoming priorities.

Beyond test scores, the presenter emphasized nonacademic factors affecting learning and offered five priorities for the year: access and equity for devices and basic needs; whole‑child and family supports including extended learning time and counseling; culturally responsive instruction and bias training for staff; targeted academic supports including tutoring, summer bridge programs and expanded ESL services; and strengthening future‑readiness through curriculum audits and professional development.

Board members asked for follow-up materials and deeper breakdowns. Requests included raw counts behind percentage rates, cohort-level trend lines for underperforming groups, clarification of how recent state policy changes (such as the Working Class Families Anti‑Hunger Act) affected free‑and‑reduced-lunch calculations, and details about Title funding reductions. The presenter agreed to supply additional data and to “pin this” for a future meeting once the district had more clarity on state reporting.

What happens next: the board asked staff to return with supplemental slides and data that disaggregate new-enrollment cohorts, funding impacts, and proposed interventions. The district will also monitor the state’s field-test guidance and report back on implications for local assessment and planning.