Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State board and ADE outline priorities for next statewide assessments after 3,000‑response survey
Summary
Survey results show educators favor aligned interim tools and interest in adaptive assessments, but raised concerns about reporting granularity, connectivity and item‑bank size; staff will draft an RFP informed by survey responses and further stakeholder input.
State education officials on Jan. 20 reported results from a November 2025 survey that will shape Arizona’s procurement of the next statewide summative assessments for English language arts, math and science (tests that expire after spring 2027).
Jessica Mueller and Deputy Associate Superintendent Bethany Spangenberg summarized responses from roughly 3,000 education professionals and about 300 community members. Educators prioritized an aligned interim or benchmark system, finer diagnostic reporting (cluster‑level and potentially standard‑level), and exploration of adaptive assessment models (stage adaptive or computer adaptive).
Survey findings reflected trade‑offs. Adaptive testing can produce more tailored measurement but often requires larger item banks, stable connectivity for computer delivery, and careful validation to produce standard‑level reporting. Several public commenters at the meeting urged cluster‑level reporting because current suppression rules can remove diagnostically useful information where small student counts exist.
On science testing, the survey showed mixed views about whether to retain a single grade‑band approach (e.g., test science in a grade band such as 3–5 and 6–8) or expand grade‑level testing across multiple years. At the high school level, the board discussed whether to continue a separate Arizona‑owned grade‑11 science assessment or rely on the science component of the nationally recognized college entrance exam used for high school accountability.
ADE and board staff said the next steps are drafting a formal RFP informed by these decision points, conducting further targeted stakeholder outreach, and presenting a scope of work for board review and possible vote in February or March. Staff emphasized that some reporting needs (for example, cluster‑level detail) could be more practically delivered via aligned interim tools rather than the end‑of‑year summative alone.
No procurement contract was awarded at the meeting; board members and staff agreed to continue public input as the RFP is drafted so technical issues such as connectivity, test length and reporting suppression can be addressed.
