Safeguarding State Assessment

What steps should we take if federal oversight fades?   

Like many Americans, I’m following the actions of the current presidential administration with interest, especially as it pertains to the future of the Department of Education (USED). It’s widely known that the administration wants to shutter USED and has dismissed hundreds of staff members. As I write this, the government shutdown continues, and more staff have been let go, including many from the offices that enforce key provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).  

These developments are consequential. USED plays a key role in enforcing the provisions of ESSA, which include requiring annual assessments in English language arts and mathematics and grade-band testing in science. USED also helps ensure these assessments meet statutory requirements for quality, such as alignment to state standards, comparability, and accessibility. 

It’s not clear how state leaders will respond if USED is shut down or downsized so much that it cannot enforce ESSA. In my work with state leaders, I’ve found them to be smart, principled, and deeply committed to improving outcomes for students. I’m confident that most will remain steadfast in their commitment to high quality assessment, though that commitment may take different forms. 

Many, perhaps most, states will likely stay the course with their current programs, either because they believe their systems are on the right track or because they anticipate that federal enforcement could eventually return—or both. Other states may pursue flexibilities not currently permitted by ESSA, but I expect they will do so in a manner consistent with their commitment to maintaining high quality state assessment.  

Given the uncertainty of the landscape, I think it’s time to seriously consider a few safeguards and systems that are necessary without USED. In that spirit, I offer three recommendations.

Write Assessment Commitments Into Law

Education policymakers should take proactive steps to embed high-quality assessment practices in state law and regulation to ensure their continuity, even in the absence of strong federal oversight. Formalizing these commitments in statute or board rule provides stability, consistency and transparency across political and leadership changes. 

Fortunately, most, if not all, states already address testing requirements in state law. But I think it’s time to take a closer look at those laws, and the rules and guidance that support it, to make sure it safeguards high quality assessment. Importantly, these policies do not need to replicate ESSA requirements. Instead, they should reflect each state’s context while preserving the core principles of validity, reliability, fairness and transparency.  

Related: Read our paper, The Case for State Testing.

In my judgement, good assessment laws and policies clearly define the purpose and intended uses of the assessments, the core requirements, and the responsibilities for public transparency and reporting. They should also establish non-negotiable standards of quality, including alignment to state standards, accessibility for all students, and clear mechanisms for oversight and technical review. Finally, laws and policies must safeguard the infrastructure that enables high-quality assessment, including adequate funding for staff and contractors, so that capacity is not diminished over time.

At times, I’ve seen well-intentioned statutes become counterproductive when they’re drafted too prescriptively. For example, state law should not mandate specific item types, scoring methods or unrealistic development timelines, or privilege a particular vendor. Instead, lawmakers should create space for education leaders to collaborate with experts, allowing for evidence-based decisions that strengthen the defensibility of the assessments while staying true to the policy intent.

In short, codifying requirements and key standards for assessment quality sends a clear signal that state assessment is not simply a compliance exercise tied to federal mandates; it is a state-level priority and a public good. Without these foundational protections in statute and supporting policies, strong assessment systems risk erosion over time as priorities shift.

Strengthen Independent Oversight 

High-quality assessment systems require independent oversight to maintain credibility and public trust. Technical advisory committees (TACs) play a crucial role in this process by providing expert review and guidance on technical quality and validity evidence, and help support appropriate interpretation and use. 

Most states already have TACs, but their influence and effectiveness depend on adequate support and resources. To function as meaningful checks on the system rather than symbolic bodies, TACs must have clearly defined roles, independence from political pressures, access to necessary data, and sufficient funding to continue and even strengthen their role.  

Independent oversight also helps states protect their significant public investment in assessment. Here’s the reality: states spend tens of millions of dollars each year contracting with testing companies to design and administer their assessment programs. Many of the professionals who carry out this work are skilled, conscientious, and deeply committed to quality. 

But testing companies are also businesses with incentives to manage costs and avoid scrutiny. They may not be eager to highlight issues that could reflect poorly on their work (for example, evidence that a test is misaligned) or that would increase expenses (such as expanding field-test samples or adding accessibility features).

Federal peer review has traditionally provided an external check to help ensure vendors meet high technical standards. Without that federal leverage, states will need to rely more heavily on their own TACs or other independent oversight mechanisms. These groups must be empowered and resourced to play a more active role in reviewing evidence and asking hard questions.  

When well-supported, TACs not only safeguard technical rigor but also help state leaders navigate complex challenges, such as implementing innovative assessment models, ensuring comparability across years, or addressing concerns about bias and accessibility.

I recommend that states clearly specify the role and authority of TACs and ensure that their recommendations carry weight in decision-making processes. This includes establishing transparent procedures for how TAC findings are communicated to state boards, legislators, and the public. This will also build confidence among educators, parents and advocacy groups that assessment decisions are guided by evidence rather than expediency.

Explore Partnerships 

To preserve and strengthen assessment quality over time, I suggest that states actively pursue partnerships that allow them to share expertise, align best practices, and establish common standards. Collaboration across states and organizations fosters consistency and efficiency, particularly when federal leadership diminishes. 

For example, states might establish multi-state partnerships to develop shared standards for data reporting, accessibility, technical documentation, and public communication. By doing so, they can maintain a degree of coherence in assessment, while reducing redundant efforts.

Partnerships also encourage collective problem-solving and provide some economy of scale. Through multi-state collaborations, states can jointly commission technical studies, share lessons learned from implementation, and create open-source tools that support continuous improvement. 

These collaborations can extend beyond state agencies to include research centers, and nonprofit organizations, which can contribute independent expertise and evaluation capacity. Taken together, these efforts should help maintain quality and support continuous improvement.

It’s Time to Take Action

If USED loses its capacity to enforce ESSA, the guardrails that have helped sustain high-quality assessment for decades could disappear. That’s not a distant or abstract risk. It’s unfolding now. Without USED to set boundaries and enforce standards, the responsibility for protecting the integrity of assessment falls to the states and the broader assessment community. 

By codifying commitments in policy, strengthening independent oversight, and building enduring partnerships, leaders and policymakers can ensure that assessment remains an important source of information to help support improved outcomes for students.