Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Benchmarks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teachers urge review of benchmark testing as district reports mixed gains
Summary
A teachers’ representative told the Glendale Elementary District board that added benchmark and gap assessments are increasing testing time and logistical burdens, while district presenters said Benchmark 3 showed some cohort gains but flagged anomalies that are under investigation.
Amber Johnson, a fourth-grade teacher and vice president of the district employees’ representative group, told the Glendale Elementary District governing board on March 26 that teachers are increasingly concerned about the cumulative testing load. “We are concerned about the growing logistical burden and increased testing time at some sites,” she said, asking the district to involve master teachers in creating benchmark assessments and to provide confidential ways for staff to surface concerns.
The remarks came just before the board heard a full presentation of Benchmark 3 results from Dr. Jerry Peterson. Peterson said some cohorts showed measurable improvement — for example, one comparison he cited showed the share of third graders labeled “minimally proficient” falling from 69.7% to 64.6% in the comparable benchmark measure — but he also identified anomalies in fifth- and seventh-grade ELA and math scores that the district is investigating with the assessment vendor and peer districts. “There are a couple anomalies … we right away contact the company, we ask them, has anybody else experienced this anomaly?” Peterson said.
Peterson described Benchmark 3 as highly correlated with the Arizona state assessment (AASA), with reliability he estimated in the 73–85% range, and said that benchmark results help the district anticipate proficiency points used for accountability. He also outlined near-term state testing (science SAI, third-grade ORF, and AASA administrations) and noted an upcoming state RFP for a new assessment vendor that could change statewide systems.
During follow-up discussion board members praised staff for student gains and pressed on the practical impacts of frequently changing tests. One board member said the variety and cadence of tests (I‑Ready, Renaissance/DNA benchmarks, AASA, AZELLA, etc.) can create a “whiplash” effect requiring teachers and collaborative teams to retool approaches frequently. District leaders emphasized triage lessons and interventions to reduce surprises for students and to address gaps before state tests.
What the board will do next: district staff said they will continue to investigate the fifth- and seventh-grade anomalies with the vendor, maintain feedback loops with schools and collaborative teams, and monitor the state RFP process. Amber Johnson’s request to involve master teachers in benchmark design and to protect anonymous staff feedback was recorded during public comment; the board did not take immediate formal action on that request at the meeting.
Ending: The presentation and public comment underscored a balance between the district’s use of benchmark data to identify needs and staff concerns about testing volume and item alignment. District staff plan follow-up with the vendor on flagged anomalies and said final scores for non‑third‑grade assessments will be available in late May; third‑grade reading scores will be available in mid‑May due to statutory timelines.
