A Superintendent’s Perspective: The Challenges of New Jersey’s New State Assessment

As a Superintendent, I had the responsibility of ensuring that our schools deliver the best possible education while also meeting state and federal accountability requirements. Every year brings new mandates, new regulations, and, most recently, New Jersey’s rollout of a “next-generation” adaptive state assessment.

State leaders describe this new exam as smarter, faster, and more responsive — a tool that will finally give teachers real-time data to improve student learning. While I respect the intent behind this initiative, I believe it’s important to acknowledge the very real challenges and unintended consequences it creates for students, teachers, and school districts.

1. Instructional Time Lost

No matter how “efficient” a new test claims to be, the reality is that testing takes time away from instruction. With fall pilots, spring administrations, and make-up sessions, schools can lose weeks of meaningful classroom learning. For districts already stretched thin, this loss of instructional time is significant.

2. The Burden of High Stakes

For the Class of 2026, the NJGPA remains a graduation requirement with a minimum cutoff score of 725. This means that students’ diplomas — the culmination of 13 years of work — hinge on a single high-stakes exam. While alternate pathways exist, the stress this creates for students, parents, and educators cannot be overstated. It is difficult to explain to families why a student who has passed every course might still be at risk of not graduating due to one test.

3. Narrow Focus on ELA and Math

The state’s focus on English Language Arts and Mathematics as the primary measures of proficiency inevitably leads to curriculum narrowing. As long as accountability systems are driven almost entirely by two subjects, schools will feel pressure to prioritize test prep over well-rounded learning experiences.

4. Questionable Value of the Data

While the Department of Education promises quicker feedback from adaptive testing, districts know that results rarely arrive in time to inform instruction for the same group of students. At best, the data might guide next year’s planning. But it does little to help the teachers who are working with this year’s students right now.

5. Assessment Fatigue

Over the past decade, New Jersey schools have cycled through NJASK, HSPA, PARCC, NJSLA, NJGPA, and now NJSLA-Adaptive. Each time, administrators and teachers are told that the new system will solve the problems of the old one. But frequent changes create confusion, erode trust, and drain valuable district resources. Families, too, are weary of seeing their children subjected to yet another new testing model.

Moving Forward: A Call for Balance

Assessments are not inherently bad. When designed well, they can be powerful tools for measuring growth and guiding instruction. But we need balance. Standardized testing should be one measure of student success, not the defining one.

I urge state policymakers to:

• Reduce testing time to protect instructional hours

• Expand accountability metrics beyond ELA and math to include a wider view of student achievement

• Engage educators and superintendents directly in the design and rollout of future testing systems

Superintendents are responsible for preparing our students for life beyond high school — college, careers, and citizenship. While assessments play a role in that mission, they must not overshadow the broader purpose of education. New Jersey’s new assessment may be well-intentioned, but unless we address the challenges it brings, we risk putting compliance above true learning.