After two years of virtual conferences, meetings, and just about everything else, Center professionals are excited to gather in San Diego from April 21-25 for the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the National Council of Measurement in Education (NCME). 

In Part 1 we addressed the problem with trying to rush forward with silver bullet solutions that gloss over clear and well-defined problem statements. Before getting to solutions, it is critical to first understand how to construct clear and well-defined problem statements. The time invested in defining the problem will pay substantial dividends in the quality of the solution and the efficiency in implementing it.

As H.L. Mencken stated, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” And education policy and practice is riddled with complex problems that are void of any clear or simple solution. 

Take the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) as an example. 

On one hand, as intended, NCLB addressed some very complex and long-standing problems related to ensuring that all students had the opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education. 

The U.S. Department of Education followed an all too familiar pattern of publishing important guidance just before the Christmas holiday, dropping a lump of coal in the stockings of state accountability directors. The gift, or Christmas miracle, that states needed was an acknowledgment that federal school accountability requirements need to be revised, not simply restarted. Unfortunately, the draft requirements simply discuss (direct) how states must restart their accountability systems in 2021-2022 after what has essentially been a 2-year accountability hiatus. 

In the midst of the holiday season, the U.S. Department of Education (USED) released a draft FAQ addressing the requirements for school accountability in 2022 under ESSA. We won’t call this release a gift, but it at least provides some clarity for states deep in planning for 2021–22 accountability.

Many of us at the Center for Assessment have led assessment reform for decades, including such noteworthy programs as the Kentucky writing and math portfolios, Wyoming’s Body of Evidence System, and Rhode Island’s Proficiency-Based Graduation Requirements. Most recently, we have supported several state leaders in gaining approval for the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA) under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to design assessment systems that elevate teaching and learning.

The 2019 NAEP results (National Assessment of Educational Progress) were released last week to much consternation, except perhaps in Mississippi and Washington, D.C., where improved results were celebrated.

Nationally, results were up slightly in fourth-grade math, flat in eighth-grade math, and down in both fourth and eighth-grade reading. These results continue a disturbing lack of progress over the last decade. 

Assessments are the most powerful and useful when designed intentionally for particular purposes – especially when it comes to interim assessments.  

This week, the Center team gathers in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with state and local educators, assessment specialists, industry leaders, and old and new friends for our 21^st annual Reidy Interactive Lecture Series (RILS). The topic of RILS this year and the goal for our two days together is to improve the selection, use, and evaluation of interim assessments by helping states and districts make better-informed decisions about the appropriateness and utility of different interim assessments options.

This is the fourth in a series of CenterLine posts by our 2019 summer interns and their Center mentors based on their project and the assessment and accountability issues they addressed this summer. Zachary Feldberg, from the University of Georgia, worked with Scott Marion on a systematic review of states’ large-scale educational assessment policies.