Ed. Note: This is an update from John Migueis, administrator of the municipal and state platform NJ21st.com, regarding the New Jersey Department of Education’s decision in August to change the state’s standardized assessments from one vendor’s summative testing to another vendor’s adaptive testing. Here Migueis focuses on the potential loss of comparable data for policy makers, parents, and district leaders; whether the new tests comply with federal accountability law; and if the DOE’s intention is to mask low proficiency scores from the public. “The concern is that changes to baselines, performance levels, or scoring methods,” he writes, “could make stagnant/declining performance look like progress.”

Migueis also published a video, available here.

A related transparency issue is New Jersey’s habit of delaying statewide test results. As of this morning only NJ, Maine, Nebraska have not yet released results from tests taken last spring. Today’s NJ Spotlight quotes Paige Kowalski, head of the Data Quality Campaign, who suspects this is a case of the “fox guarding the henhouse”; if the scores show declines, “there’s not a lot of incentive to put out bad news…“You should be outraged in New Jersey,” said Kowalski, who believes the delays are “absolutely intentional,” not due to a lack of resources.

I emailed DOE Commissioner Kevin Dehmer, Monday, on his department’s 10/15/2025 memo outlining changes to New Jersey’s Every Student Succeeds Act accountability system and the transition to adaptive testing.

The email asked the Commissioner to release the documentation that explains how schools will be measured beginning in 2025 and how results will remain comparable to previous years.

The document linked within the memo explains some of the changes (revised graduation goals, a six-year graduation rate, a new high school persistence indicator, updated 90-day attendance rule). It does not provide the detailed formulas, weighting tables, or year to year comparability data needed for public verification.

No documentation was provided on adaptive testing, linking studies or proficiency thresholds. There was no analysis showing how the absenteeism change will affect subgroup inclusion or how districts can align 2024 results with the 2025 framework.

The memo and attachment explain what changed but not how or why.

The email asked Commissioner Dehmer to make the following items public:

• Side by side targets showing old and new long-term goals and annual targets for academic achievement, graduation, and proficiency along with the baseline year used for each.
• Indicator definitions and weighting including formulas for how each metric feeds into a school’s overall score and how proficiency in ELA, Math and Science is weighted across grade levels.
• Expanded performance levels with a full cut score table and mapping connecting 2024 performance levels to the 2025 system.
• Chronic absenteeism rule change explaining why the threshold was raised from 45 to 90 days and showing how many students are excluded under the new rule- broken down by subgroup.
• Comparability across years including a crosswalk allowing trends from 2019 to 2025 to be tracked along with a data packet showing school results under the 2024 and 2025 models.
• Identification timeline with a clear public schedule for pre-release profiles, appeals, final TSI decisions, and public reporting as well as a plain-language guide explaining what changed.
• Transition to adaptive testing including technical manuals, linking or equating studies, and (yet, again) confirmation that adaptive scale scores will remain comparable to current fixed-form NJSLA tests and comply with federal ESSA requirements.

Without this information, it’s impossible for BOE’s, teachers, or families to tell whether the new system measures real improvement or just redefines success.

Without the rationale, the public is left to wonder why these changes were made – especially given the year over year declines in proficiency school districts have experienced.

The concern is that changes to baselines, performance levels, or scoring methods could make stagnant/declining performance look like progress.

This becomes even more concerning as the state moves toward adaptive testing, which adjusts question difficulty for each student and makes cross-year comparisons harder to interpret.

Transparency in accountability data is not optional under federal law- it is foundational to public trust.

It is unclear as to why questions we asked up to this point (this isn’t the first email we sent) have remained unanswered – they should be simple enough to address and are critical enough to have already been covered.

Copy of Memo

Email Sent to Commissioner Dehmer:

Dear Commissioner Dehmer,
I’m writing to follow up on the October 15 NJDOE memo about the 2025 ESSA accountability process and the upcoming transition to adaptive testing (attached). 

I want to request the underlying documentation and data needed for the public to understand how these changes will affect accountability, comparability, and transparency going forward.

The memo references updates to goals and targets, new indicators, expanded performance levels and a change to the chronic absenteeism threshold yet t he technical details are missing.

I’m asking the Department to please make the following information available:

1) Side by side targets
-Old and new long-term goals and annual targets for achievement, graduation and ELP
-Year each baseline is set as well as any rules for recalculation if participation rates change

2) Indicator definitions and weighting
- Exact formulas and weights used for each indicator (including the new six-year graduation rate and high school persistence measures)
- How proficiency in ELA, Math, and Science is incorporated and weighted across grade levels

3) Expanded performance levels
- Full cut-score table for each level
- Mapping that shows how 2024 performance levels align with 2025 levels

4) Chronic absenteeism rule change
- Rationale for changing the inclusion rule from 45 to 90 days
- Analysis showing how many students are excluded from the denominator under the new rule and broken down by subgroup

5) Comparability across years
- A crosswalk that that would allow trends from 2019 to 2025 to be tracked
- Document packet showing each school’s results under both the 2024 and 2025 calculations for one full cycle

6) Identification timeline and transparency
- Public timeline for pre-release profiles, appeals, final TSI decisions, and public release
- Plain language guide explaining what changed this year and how to read the 2025 profiles

7) Transition to Adaptive testing
- Technical manual for the adaptive ELA and Math assessments that includes item selection, scale score construction, standard errors, and linking methods
- Equating or concordance studies that ensure scores can be compared from year to year
- Statement confirming that adaptive scale scores will remain comparable to the current fixed-form NJSLA, how proficiency thresholds will be maintained, and confirmation that the new system meets ESSA’s requirement to use the same assessment for all students

Making all this available would help districts plan improvement efforts and help families trust that the system is consistent and transparent.

Without side by side targets, weights, cut scores, and crosswalks- the public can’t tell whether changes reflect real improvement , are simply new definitions and may cause suspicion as to whether this is simply a way to mask declines.

Thank you for your attention and for ensuring that these significant updates are as transparent and understandable as possible.

Read More About Changes to DOE Accountability System