The Joint Legislative Task Force on Education Funding heard three presentations Wednesday on federal testing requirements, how to interpret national test scores, and Alaska's statewide assessment system.
The task force met in Juneau to review the framework that governs state testing programs and to see how Alaska's AKSTAR assessment works. Members took sample test questions and reviewed reports that students, families, and teachers receive.
Federal Requirements Set Floor, Not Ceiling
Austin Reed, federal affairs advisor for the National Conference of State Legislatures, walked the task force through the assessment and accountability rules in the Every Student Succeeds Act. States must test students in math and reading in grades three through eight and once in high school, he said. Science tests are required once in elementary school, once in middle school, and once in high school. That adds up to 17 total assessments statewide each year, though individual students take at most three per year.
"States ultimately are given the discretion to choose their assessments," Reed said. "They have to be high quality. There are certain federal parameters and peer review that pertain to determining that. They also have to be aligned to the state's academic standards, which states also choose."
The law requires states to build accountability systems that meaningfully differentiate school performance. Those systems must include academic achievement, student growth for elementary schools, high school graduation rates, progress on English language proficiency, and at least one school quality or student success indicator such as chronic absenteeism or college readiness measures.
The academic indicators must carry more weight than the quality indicators, typically interpreted as 51 percent or more of a school's rating. Beyond that, states decide how much weight each measure carries.
Schools that fall into the lowest five percent statewide or have graduation rates below 67 percent are designated for comprehensive support and improvement. Schools where specific student subgroups underperform are flagged for targeted support. States must set aside seven percent of Title I funding for school improvement activities, but they decide how to distribute those dollars and what interventions to require.
Reed said the current law, passed in 2015, gives states far more discretion than the previous No Child Left Behind regime. Under that earlier law, the federal government prescribed specific consequences for underperforming schools, including staff dismissals and school closures.
"The primary difference is that the previous authorization was very prescriptive from the federal level," Reed said. "Effectively, the Every Student Succeeds Act, which we've been under for the last 10 years, has the same structure, same kind of goals, but effectively affords states a lot more discretion into how they carry out their systems of assessment, accountability, and then school improvement intervention."
This article was drafted with AI assistance and reviewed by editors before publishing. Every claim can be verified against the original transcript. If you spot an error, let us know.
States can amend their plans at any time by submitting changes to the U.S. Department of Education, which has 90 days to respond. The state must hold a public comment period and get the governor's sign-off, but legislative consultation is not required for amendments, only for the original plan submitted in 2017.
Representative Ruffridge asked how often states revise their plans. Reed said small modifications are common, though wholesale changes are rare. The Department of Education maintains a public portal tracking all state plan amendments and waivers.
Reed said he was not aware of any state receiving a waiver from annual testing requirements in math and reading, though the secretary of education has that authority. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the secretary invited waiver requests but ultimately provided only limited flexibility on how tests were administered, not whether they were given.
NAEP Proficiency Is Aspirational, Not Average
Paul Thomas, an education professor at Furman University, explained how the National Assessment of Educational Progress works and why media coverage of NAEP scores often misleads the public.
NAEP is administered by the National Center for Educational Statistics as a random sampling of students in grades four and eight, primarily in math and reading. It was designed in the 1990s to provide a common yardstick for comparing state proficiency levels, since states set their own standards and tests.
"There's no standard definition in the United States for grade-level reading," Thomas said. "There's no standard definition in the United States for the term proficient."
On NAEP, proficient is set at the 70th percentile, a high bar. A 2004 report by Rosenberg found that NAEP proficient was described as "aspirational" during the design process, meaning it was a goal to work toward, not an expectation that all students would reach it.
"If you hear that 30 percent of students, only 30 percent of students are proficient, that is statistically legitimate," Thomas said. "That is what the test is designed to do."
The more relevant NAEP benchmark is "basic," which aligns with what most states call proficient on their own tests. Alaska, like most states, sets its state proficiency level near NAEP basic.
Thomas said rising or falling test scores do not necessarily reflect changes in learning. He cited Gerald Bracey, a scholar on standardized testing, who warned against using tests for purposes other than what they were designed for.
"Do not use a test for something other than what it's designed for doing," Thomas said. "And a lot of times we're making decisions about policy based on things like NAEP and media coverage of NAEP, and it's likely not an appropriate use."
Thomas said about half of Alaska students are identified as living in poverty, and the state has the same poverty gap it had in 1998. A 2024 study by Morin and Tinken found that 63 percent of test performance is correlated with home and community factors, not schools.
"Family income variables are immutable by schools," Thomas said. "Only public policy outside the control of school personnel can influence family income."
He said the highest-performing schools on NAEP are Department of Defense schools, which serve students with no poverty, stable housing, food security, and medical care. Those schools outperform Massachusetts and have 70 to 90 percent of students scoring above basic.
"We have really good evidence and we just don't focus on it," Thomas said. "The national attention is on Mississippi when it should be on the Department of Defense schools."
Representative Himschoot asked about the turnaround in DoDEA schools, which were once low-performing. Thomas said the schools increased teacher pay by $10,000, reduced class sizes, and created more structure and cohesion across schools.
"I think the solution is we need both," Thomas said. "If we have social support and we do the in-school reform, I think we see results. Regretfully for me, we keep just doing the same kind of accountability, new standards, new test approach in schools and don't do anything else around it."
AKSTAR Combines Interim and Summative Tests
Karen Moline, administrator for standards and assessments at the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, walked the task force through Alaska's statewide assessment and gave a live demonstration of sample test questions.
Alaska uses a connected approach that combines MAP Growth, an interim assessment given periodically throughout the year, with AKSTAR, the summative assessment required by federal law. First administered in the 2021-2022 school year, AKSTAR is an adaptive assessment personalized for each student. Students take MAP Growth in fall and winter, which provides a projected proficiency score for AKSTAR. The summative test is given in spring. A 2025 linking study confirmed that MAP Growth scores predict AKSTAR proficiency with high accuracy, showing correlations of 0.70 or higher, often exceeding 0.80.
"We've taken the power of an interim assessment and the need for a summative assessment, as was dictated through ESSA, and connected those to come up with what we have as AKSTAR," Moline said.
The practice test is available online to anyone. Students can take it in any grade and subject, with or without accommodations. The test includes multiple item types: multiple choice, drag and drop, multiple select, and fill-in-the-blank. That way students know how to navigate the technology before taking the actual assessment.
Moline demonstrated a third-grade reading passage about penguins. The first question asked what the passage was mainly about. The correct answer was "how they raise their young." A second question required students to sequence sentences by clicking and dragging. A third asked students to select two answers instead of one.
For math, Moline showed a text-to-speech accommodation. A computer-generated voice read the question aloud: "Diana had 63 feet of rope. She cut the rope into seven pieces of equal length. Which expression represents the length, in feet, of each piece of rope?" The correct answer was 63 divided by seven.
Representative Ruffridge asked how students using text-to-speech would select answers if they could not see the screen. Moline said the accommodation is designed for students who have used it in regular instruction. The answers are read aloud, and if a student needs help clicking, that support would be specified in their individualized education plan.
Representative Himschoot asked whether text-to-speech is available for all grades. Moline said it is available for students with IEPs starting in third grade, when AKSTAR begins. For reading passages, the accommodation reads the question and answers but not the passage itself.
Students, families, and teachers receive reports within 24 to 72 hours of testing. The reports show the student's MAP Growth score and projected AKSTAR proficiency level. Districts receive full student results in July. Statewide results are released in the fall.
Kelly Manning, deputy director for innovation and education excellence, said the quick turnaround allows teachers to see where students are likely to fall on AKSTAR even before the summative test is given.
"It is a piece of information that they can take forward within the window of the testing," Manning said. "So within 24 to 72 hours after taking the test."
Educators also receive a projected proficiency report for their entire class, showing which students may need intervention to reach proficient.
The department provides resources online, including assessment blueprints that show which standards are tested and how many items per standard, achievement level descriptors that explain what students can do at each proficiency level, and an educator's guide with answer keys and item types.
Moline said the department is working to embed answers directly into the practice test and will release a report in a few weeks on the most missed item types and standards.
Senator Loki Tobin, co-chair of the task force, said educators have responded positively to the system.
"I know many of our educators really appreciate this tool and the ability to see where their students are and then adapt their teaching methodology and pedagogy to hopefully move their students toward proficient," Tobin said. "And so I'm very excited at this particular assessment that we offer to our educators."
The task force adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
alaskabeacon.com · Haley Lehman · 1w ago · 78% match
Comments
Sign in to leave a comment.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.