OPI defends new MAS reporting as board, superintendents voice alarm at low early percentages

Sita Rose, assessment director at the Office of Public Instruction, delivered a technical briefing on the MAS (multi‑assessment) reporting system and answered prolonged questions from board members, administrators and the public about early progress reports released after the first testlet window.

Rose said MAS reporting intentionally produces multiple report types: weekly teacher/testlet ("Tesla") reports, progress reports after windows, and summative three‑window reports used for accountability. She said the system uses an item response theory scoring model, that performance levels are criterion‑referenced to state standards, and that early progress reports rely on a small number of testlets and therefore have large confidence intervals. "We are being very conservative when we are reporting students who are at or above proficiency," Rose said, adding that progress reports are "a signal, not a defining" measure and that results will stabilize as additional testlets are combined.

Board member Hannah Neeskin read statewide early progress percentages that alarmed members — for example, she cited figures that showed only 2% of third graders and 3% of fourth graders meeting or exceeding proficiency on the first ELA testlet — and said she did not believe those numbers reflected the ability of Montana students. Laurie Baron, superintendent of Evergreen School District (Kalispell), gave detailed public comment criticizing the reporting: she said the progress numbers were "an unfair and embarrassing representation of our students and teachers" and called for more time and support before the scores are used for anything consequential.

OPI staff acknowledged the communications challenge and said the agency has submitted documentation for peer review to the U.S. Department of Education and is increasing field support, professional development, and guidance on interpreting testlet and progress reports. Rose emphasized that the MAS system is intended to provide more granular, timely information to guide instruction and interventions, but that it requires clearer explanation to educators and the public to avoid misinterpretation.

The board did not take formal action on MAS reporting at the meeting but instructed staff to continue outreach, clarify confidence intervals and reporting purpose, and return with additional materials; members asked OPI to consider publishing confidence intervals or explanatory guidance alongside any aggregate numbers to reduce misinterpretation.

This discussion spanned a large portion of the meeting and included technical explanations, pointed public testimony, and a commitment from the board to continue oversight and communication work.