Detailed information supporting public opposition to

Superintendent Walters’ request for changes to federal ESSA plan:

 

GENERAL POINTS:

Monitoring of student performance data and impact on students:

  1. No detail provide in the waiver request for how state will continue to monitor performance data among student subgroups (ie low income, students with disabilities, minorities).

  2. These amendment requests recommend major changes to the way in which data for priority student groups is used. All ethnic subgroups would be deleted and all racial/ethnic student groups would now have the same proficiency targets. Priority student groups include: Students with Disabilities, Economically Disadvantaged Students, English Learners, Black/African American Students, Hispanic/Latino Students, Native American/American Indian Students, Asian/Pacific Islander Students, Students identifying with Two or More Races. This can obscure specific subgroup underperformance and make results less transparent to families

  3. Districts selecting their own assessments will reduce transparency around student academic performance.

  4. Benchmark tests are not designed to measure Oklahoma state standards, which negates the purpose of state testing.

  5. The draft request changes “grades 6–12 complete an ICAP” to “grades 9–12,” cutting off early career exploration that research and counselors use to keep middle-schoolers engaged—especially for students at risk of disengagement.


Issues with implementation timing and costs:

  1. OEQA, agency in charge of testing, says doing this with multiple vendors would be extremely complex and cumbersome, and not provide accurate comparisons to meet ESSA standards statewide for testing results on academic performance

  2. OSDE has a horrendous track record on effective management of large scale projects. In fact, they are failing at basic agency responsibilities.

  3. Walters has publicly stated districts will need to select a benchmark assessment vendor by December 1st, 2025. This is an unrealistic expectation since the school year has already begun and the list of OTS assessments has not even been given to districts.

  4. The charge is for this to go into effect or the 2025-2026 school year. This change at a minimum would require changes to administrative rules that would have to be approved by State Board of Education (SBE) and the Legislature and that can not conceivably happen prior to the end of the school year. More likely, this change would require updating §70-1210.508 of the Oklahoma Statutes, which directs the SBE to “adopt a statewide system of student assessments in compliance with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as reauthorized and amended by P.L. No. 114-95, also known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).” Federal approval would also be necessary. The timing of all steps needed makes immediate implementation this school year virtually impossible.

  5. Assessment windows will align with the traditional Oklahoma School Testing Program (OSTP) windows—typically April through May. Specific vendor testing windows must also align with the state’s reporting and accountability timelines. As questions loom about compliance with state and federal compliance surrounding this announcement, it is concerning that OSDE does not appear to be planning for the typical testing process to occur. This could lead to a breach of contract with Cognia, which is the state’s testing vendor. This could likely cost the state a considerable amount of money.

  6. Districts will be responsible for contracting directly with their chosen vendors. OSDE will reimburse districts for the cost of the end-of-year summative assessment only. Districts have already approved budgets for the current school year. Adding one more requirement for them to pay for services in advance and then wait on reimbursement could be challenging.

  7. Reimbursement requests will be submitted via the Grants Management System (GMS). The reimbursement process through the GMS is notoriously difficult and slow. The time lapse between submitting expenditure claims and receiving payments has increased during the last three years.

  8. OSDE states vendors must undergo a rigorous review process to ensure alignment with Oklahoma Academic Standards and compliance with ESSA’s technical criteria for summative assessments; How will this rigorous review process fit with the deadlines ahead?

  9. OSDE claims the testing change is intended to improve cost efficiency at the state level. Has OSDE conducted a fiscal impact study to confirm this? State testing is provided to all Oklahoma public schools through a state contract. The size of that contract likely provides an economy-of-scale discount. Oklahoma taxpayers need to understand whether  district-by-district purchases of assessments will be more or less expensive?

  10. OSDE claims the testing change is intended to promote instructional coherence between interim and summative assessments. Again, while this would be ideal, implementation of a new assessment program should include lead time, field testing, and training.

  11. OSDE claims the testing change is intended to provide districts with greater flexibility and local control by allowing them to select from a list of vendors. However, planning for the school year started months ago. Schools have already started classes and budgets were approved months ago. This abrupt change does the opposite of providing flexibility by creating confusion.

  12. OSDE claims the testing change is intended to enable access to standards-aligned benchmark assessments, providing teachers with more timely and actionable data. While this is a laudable goal, many districts have processes in place to select instructional materials, including assessments. Ideally, the selection an OTS assessment program would involve representatives of multiple stakeholder groups, including teachers, parents, and curriculum specialists. This has not happened and can not happen if implemented in 2025-26 school year.

  13. The changes replace the “Nine Essential Elements” (9EE) needs assessment with the new “Oklahoma 5 Essential Measures. (5EM)” The amendment rewrites school-improvement supports so lower performing (CSI/ATSI/TSI) schools must use the new 5-measure tool instead of 9EE, resetting processes, training, and rubrics mid-cycle—adding cost/complexity without evidence it’s better.


Concerns on testing comparisons, lack of uniformity, and data accuracy/integrity:

  1. OSDE states they will work with a third-party psychometric vendor to conduct score concordance studies across the approved assessments. This process is supposed ensure that student performance is comparable across districts, regardless of the vendor used, as required by ESSA for state accountability systems. Regardless of the framing of this initiative, these are still high-stakes tests. Students frequently score one or two correct responses away from a higher (or lower) performance level. While a concordance study sounds good, it comes with notable limitations. The most notable example of this kind of study is the concordance produced jointly by the makers of the ACT and SAT. Their guide notes several limitations inherent with comparing between different exams, which will provide unpredictable advantages/disadvantages for the various school districts in the state of Oklahoma.

  2. Districts will be responsible for submitting results to OSDE through their Student Information Systems (SIS) to support reporting, and federal and state compliance. School districts submit numerous reports through their SIS to OSDE. Nearly every dataset requires corrections. How will the state ensure data accuracy and integrity working with multiple SISes, multiple testing companies, and hundreds of District Testing Coordinators around the state?

  3. As required by §70-1210.508, the Commission for Educational Quality and Accountability (CEQA), under the guidance of the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability (OEQA), will establish statewide performance levels by subject and grade. Performance level descriptors will be developed to maintain consistent expectations across vendors. Again, since this hasn’t been done yet, how will the promise of “timely” reporting be delivered?


Oklahoma State School Report Cards:

  1. Despite Walters stating he would not implement this, the submitted waiver is still formally requesting to replace chronic absenteeism with a subjective teacher effectiveness rating, which is not a student centered or rooted in data. Oklahoma is in an extreme teacher shortage, with over 6000 adjunct or emergency certified teachers. The draft replaces a student-focused school-quality measure with a composite built from teacher certification, years of experience, attendance, PD completion, and evaluation scores—tying school grades to the workforce crisis and penalizing schools for shortages they can’t control (e.g., rural). Even though OSDE cllaims they do not intend to put this into the state report card, it still remains in the draft we are being asked to comment on that is being submitted to the State Board and US Dept of Education. This is not the fault of school districts but the fault of the government, creating yet another measurement of success or failure of a district that they have no ability to impact locally.


Red Flags = Fraud Opportunities:

  1. Schools must show how all kids do - especially students with disabilities, English learners, and economically disadvantaged children; Walters’ plan changes or removes those reports, hiding poor results from the public; ESSA § 1111(c)(4)(C): 70 O.S. §3-104.4 

  2. Federal law requires clear targets and consistent accountability rules; Walters’ vague goals don’t define scoring until after results are in, making failure look like success; ESSA § 1111(b): 70 O.S. §3-104.4 

  3. Parents, teachers, and districts must be consulted before big changes; short poorly advertised comment periods mean fewer hard questions and more room for shady deals; ESSA §1111(a)(8): OAC 210:35-3-61 

  4. Federal and state law require fair bidding for contracts; Walters’ plan funnels money to certain vendors without open bids risking favoritism; 2 C.F. R §200.317-326: 74 AND O S. §85.7 

  5. Programs must be proven valid, reliable, and effective; swapping to untested systems like 5EM math without proof puts kids at risk academically; SSA § 1111(b)(2) 70 OS §1210 508

  6. Clear criteria are required for removing schools from improvement lists; Walters’ plan lowers the bar creating fake progress; ESSA § 1111(d)(3)(A) OAC 210.35-3-61 

  7. The public has a right to see government records; no drafts, notes or emails have been publicly shared thus hiding outside influence; U.S.C. §552:51 O S. §24A 

  8. Law protects employees who report wrongdoing; if staff fear retaliation fraud goes unchecked; 41 U.S.C. §4712. O.S. §840-2.5