Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Implementation Timeline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears DOE's measurement roadmap proposing a prepare/preview/implement sequence with full implementation in 2028–29
Summary
The Department of Education proposed a consolidated timeline to align assessment procurement, higher cut scores, and SPSF refinements: a prepare year, a preview year, and full implementation in the 2028—29 school year; the board asked for a side-by-side comparison with the plan it adopted in December and requested explicit cut-score schedules and bridging analyses.
Superintendent Conway and department leaders presented a measurement roadmap that packages assessment, accountability and school-improvement work into a coordinated three-phase timeline: a prepare year (to run regulatory processes and assessment procurement), a preview year (to show SPSF 2.0 results without stakes), and an implementation year with consequences tied to 2028—29 school-year data.
Deputy Superintendent Heislup described the department's objectives: preserve the state's higher expectations set by the board, synchronize technical changes so stakeholders do not receive conflicting signals, and prioritize support for students furthest from opportunity. The presentation emphasized a practical sequencing approach intended to provide divisions and families with preview access to new SPSF outputs before stakes apply.
The department proposed five near-term actions for the board's first review: (1) update some SPSF category names this fall (examples flagged for board discussion), (2) move to annual high-school measurement starting fall 2027 to make results more timely, (3) change proportional reweighting when the English-language-proficiency (ELP) indicator is absent at small-EL schools, (4) pilot exception B for recently arrived English learners in select divisions before any statewide change, and (5) accelerate the full proficiency cut-score implementation to the 2028—29 school year (noted as one year earlier than the prior December plan). The department emphasized that the board's December vote remains in effect until the board votes otherwise, and that the roadmap seeks to provide a clearer, synchronized path forward.
Board members pressed for specifics: several asked that the department provide a clear, numerical side-by-side comparison of the December schedule versus the proposed new timeline; others asked for bridging or equating methodology to show how a new assessment vendor's scores would be comparable to prior years. Members also emphasized the urgency of identifying low-performing schools and making support available sooner rather than later.
The department agreed to return with modeling, explicit cut-score schedules, and a mapping of how JARK's recommendations would fit the proposed timeline. Several board members said they would reserve final judgments until they had the numeric modeling and a clearer calendar of regulatory steps.
