This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) | |
|---|---|
| Name | California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress |
| Abbreviation | CAASPP |
| Administered by | California Department of Education, Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium |
| Country | United States |
| Established | 2014 |
| Grades | 3–8, 11 |
| Subjects | English–language arts, mathematics, science |
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) The California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress is a statewide system for measuring student achievement in California, administered by the California Department of Education in partnership with consortia and vendors such as the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and Educational Testing Service. It replaces earlier programs linked to federal laws and state statutes like the No Child Left Behind Act and the Every Student Succeeds Act, and aligns with the Common Core State Standards Initiative adopted by many states including California State Board of Education policies.
CAASPP serves students in grades 3 through 8 and grade 11, covering English language arts, mathematics, and selected science assessments such as the California Science Test based on Next Generation Science Standards. The system integrates computer-based adaptive assessments from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium with supplemental summative and interim tools developed with partners like ETS and contractors that have included Educational Testing Service and CogAT vendors. CAASPP data inform accountability measures used by the California Department of Education, local school districts, and stakeholders including teachers unions and state policymakers.
The CAASPP framework emerged after California transitioned from the Standardized Testing and Reporting program to Common Core–aligned assessments following policy shifts by the California State Board of Education and legislative action influenced by federal statutes such as the No Child Left Behind Act and its successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act. Development involved collaborations among state agencies, consortia like the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, private contractors including Educational Testing Service and technology providers, and research partners at institutions such as the Stanford University Graduate School of Education and the University of California system. Pilot testing and field trials referenced standards-setting studies comparable to those used by the ACT and the SAT.
CAASPP summative assessments use computer-adaptive testing in English language arts and mathematics developed by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, featuring performance tasks similar to those in Performance Assessment of Competency Education research and item types informed by PARCC design reports. The science component, the California Science Test, employs a mix of multiple-choice and constructed-response items reflecting the Next Generation Science Standards and is comparable to assessments used by the National Science Foundation–funded projects. Test formats require devices supported by vendors such as Dell Technologies, Microsoft, and Apple Inc. and incorporate accessibility features originally developed in collaboration with organizations like the National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Administration windows for CAASPP are scheduled by the California Department of Education with local school districts coordinating test administration logistics, security protocols, and proctoring consistent with state rules and guidance from entities like the U.S. Department of Education. Scoring uses automated scoring for selected-response items and human scorers for constructed-response and performance-task items, following rubrics informed by psychometric standards practiced by organizations such as the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. Results contribute to accountability indices used in state reporting and in district performance frameworks overseen by bodies including the California State Board of Education.
CAASPP provides accommodations and alternate assessments for students with disabilities under plans developed by local Individualized Education Program teams and 504 plans, aligning with federal protections in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Accessibility resources include text-to-speech, translated glossaries, and extended time supported by assistive-technology vendors and guidance from advocacy organizations such as the Council for Exceptional Children and the National Center for Learning Disabilities. Alternate assessments are designed for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and follow protocols similar to those promulgated by national experts at the Center on Instruction.
CAASPP results are reported at individual, school, district, and state levels via dashboards maintained by the California Department of Education and are used by policymakers, researchers at institutions like University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University, and media outlets including the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle. Reports include proficiency levels, scale scores, and subgroup analyses for demographics tracked under federal law such as race and ethnicity categories, English learner status, and socioeconomic indicators tied to programs like the National School Lunch Program. Data inform local improvement plans, charter petitions reviewed by county boards of education, and statewide accountability measures.
CAASPP has faced criticism and controversy from education advocates, parent groups, labor organizations like California Teachers Association, and researchers at universities including University of California, Los Angeles over test length, student privacy concerns involving technology vendors, and the use of results for high-stakes decisions. Debates have referenced federal-state conflicts seen during the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act and disputes over cost and contract management involving vendors comparable to controversies in other states with suppliers such as Pearson PLC. Critics argue for alternatives promoted by reform groups and researchers at think tanks like the Learning Policy Institute and the Brookings Institution, while supporters cite alignment with standards and comparability with assessments used by consortia including Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.