ExcelinEd CEO Patricia Levesque responds to Oklahoma’s decision to end the statewide summative assessment requirement, warning it will undermine consistent academic measurement, burden districts and make it harder to help students succeed.
Statement from Patricia Levesque, CEO, ExcelinEd:
“Oklahoma’s student performance has reached crisis levels. In 2024, eighth graders scored at an all-time low in both reading and math. Fourth graders scored at an all-time low in reading and nearly as low in math as they did almost two decades ago.
“Yet instead of focusing on strategies and supports to help these students catch up, last year the state superintendent chose a different path. He advocated lowering passing scores for students on the statewide assessment.
“If you think about the statewide test like a scale that measures a student’s academic “weight,” the superintendent adjusted the scale to create a whole new reality. A student who would have measured as struggling in reading or math was suddenly considered on grade level. A student who would have been flagged for urgent support was now, on paper, doing just fine.
“State leaders rightly reversed that decision, directing the superintendent to use the state’s former, reliable, honest scale so parents, teachers and policymakers could see the truth and act on it.
“Now, the superintendent has decided to throw out the statewide test altogether. Instead of a single, end-of-year assessment aligned to the Oklahoma academic standards that educators across the state worked hard to create and are required to teach, districts will be asked to choose from a menu of off-the-shelf tests that aren’t necessarily designed to align with Oklahoma’s standards.
“This change will make it impossible to compare results across districts, identify which students need help or fairly measure progress. Under the newly proposed system, local districts may wind up paying more for assessments, creating inequities in testing quality and access.
“In the past, federal officials rejected a similar proposal from Arizona because the law requires states to have a single, statewide test for accountability. Muddying the waters only helps those who want to obfuscate what lies beneath.
“Students, families and educators deserve better than patchwork testing and lowered expectations. We urge policymakers at the state and federal level to stand firm against this disruptive change and to ensure Oklahoma’s students get the clarity, consistency and honesty they need to succeed in school and beyond.”
Key Questions for Policymakers to Consider regarding the State Superintendent’s waiver request:
- How will the OK DOE ensure all students are assessed on the same Oklahoma academic standards if students are taking nine different tests?
- How will the OK DOE ensure all students are held to the same performance expectations? In other words, how will the OK DOE ensure that the “passing scores” on different tests mean the same thing for each student?
- How will student performance and growth be measured when children move between districts using different tests? Is it the intention of the OK DOE to lose this important measure of progress in school grading?
- Since the Superintendent’s waiver request indicates that these low-stakes benchmark assessments will be used in school accountability, is there a concern that the state is now creating high stakes stressors on students three times a year? Is there a concern that the fundamental benefit of benchmark assessments to assist teachers with instruction will now be lost when they become high stakes tests?
- Will a state requirement for multiple benchmark tests take more instructional time from the classroom?
- Without consistent statewide data, how will the state identify underperforming schools and ensure struggling students receive the help they need?
- How does this change align with Oklahoma’s commitment to improving declining student achievement scores?
- Since the current statewide assessment is free to OK school districts, how will districts—particularly those with limited resources—manage the time and expense of procuring, administering, reporting on their own assessments? What is the additional cost that OK districts and OK taxpayers for this shift in assessment?
- How will teachers receive timely, comparable and actionable data to adjust instruction if the state lacks a consistent baseline?
- How will Oklahoma ensure security during high-stakes benchmark testing when assessments are used nationwide for instructional purposes and there are three times more opportunities to prompt students, share/discuss items used, etc.?
- How will Oklahoma avoid the backlash from teachers at the loss of a valuable instructional tool which will now be used for the purpose of high-stakes accountability assessments?
- How will colleges, employers and the military interpret Oklahoma’s varied assessment results when evaluating students from different districts?
- What are the risks to federal education funding or grant eligibility if Oklahoma cannot demonstrate it has a consistent statewide student assessment?
