Ed. Note: This is an open letter from NJ21st to New Jersey Education Commissioner Kevin Dehmer itemizing concerns about the new statewide adaptive tests announced last week. In addition to the concerns voiced in the letter, NJ Education Report wonders: 1) If the new tests will turn around results faster than the old NJSLA tests which are so delayed that schools and parents have no time for intervention; 2) If the new set of results will report grade-level proficiency; 3) If the DOE is changing the bar for “proficiency” in relation to NJSLA and NAEP; 4) If the new assessments allow for mSGP (or similar) growth metrics; 5) How these adaptive tests will handle the writing components of NJSLA.

Here is the preface and letter from NJ21st:

Last week, the New Jersey Department of Education announced plans to move to a new kind of state testing called NJSLA-Adaptive. Starting in the 2025–26 school year, students will take computer-based tests that adjust in difficulty as they go.

On the surface, this sounds like progress. But as an organization that’s spent years tracking how schools report student outcomes, we see real risks in the way this change is being rolled out. Adaptive testing could end up making it harder—not easier—for parents, teachers, and the public to understand how students are actually doing, especially since proficiency scores have already been sliding in recent years.

We voted to put these concerns in writing to Education Commissioner Kevin Dehmer. Below is the open letter we sent expressing our concerns and recommendations.

Mr. Dehmer,

NJ21st is a nonprofit civic journalism organization that has a vested interest in the decisions government entities make – especially when they impact children.

We are writing to express our position on the upcoming rollout of the new NJSLA-Adaptive statewide assessments slated for the 2025–2026 school year that we learned about through NJ Education Report.

Adaptive testing may (intentionally or unintentionally) mask recent declines in student proficiency.

Comparison Concerns – This new method of scoring will likely establish a new measurement scale, with each student coming across a different set of items. This can make comparisons to prior NJSLA results difficult, if not impossible, and creates a circumstance where declines in proficiency can be brushed aside as part of a “new baseline.”

Data Fog- The rollout this fall is designated a field test—not used for “official scoring.” This can set the stage for a convenient narrative, with the potential for poor performance to be labeled as “not official,” and scrutiny delayed until Spring 2026. By that point, the new scale would likely be entrenched.

Hidden Trends- If the public reporting aggregates scores under the new scale, important declines within vulnerable student groups (e.g., English learners, low-income students, students with disabilities) may go unnoticed.

Given the potential risks, the manner in which the Department of Education is rolling out these changes is unconscionable.

Students, teachers, parents, and other key stakeholders are, in a sense, blindsided with a new approach and little to no basis to provide feedback. This creates a context where people may assume the worst.

Families, schools, advocacy groups and legislators rely on accurate data to make important decisions on resources and advocacy.

Recommendations:

• Link prior NJSLA scores with the new results before Spring 2026 testing.
• Release performance trends (side by side and including subgroup-level data), under both the previous and new formats for several years.
• Communicate clearly with stakeholders (parents, teachers, school boards) that declines in proficiency pre-2025–2026 are, in fact valid and should not be dismissed.
• Ensure reporting in the School Performance Reports maintains continuity and accountability across the transition period.

Thank you for your dedication to our schools and your consideration of these concerns. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss how we might protect the quality of our children’s education during this transition.

Sincerely,
The Board of NJ21st