Last week, NJ21st reached out directly to the U.S. Department of Education to flag major concerns about New Jersey’s plan to roll out “NJSLA-Adaptive” testing this fall. We also shared the email with Commissioner Dehmer, Governor Murphy and the NJ BOE through Director Shoener, asking for clarity on whether this shift complies with the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This email was sent one day after our email to Commissioner Dehmer.

The U.S. Dept. of Education approved New Jersey’s amended ESSA State Plan in late May, but that letter does not specifically analyze or endorse the upcoming NJSLA-Adaptive rollout.

It is striking that statewide testing isn’t mentioned at all in the approval letter, given its centrality to ESSA and the scale of the change New Jersey is pursuing.

Is New Jersey using the ‘field test’ label to move ahead without immediate federal scrutiny? Once the adaptive model becomes operational in 2026, comparability and compliance with ESSA will be unavoidable questions the state must address.

The New Jersey Department of Education labeled the 2025–26 adaptive rollout as a “field test.” ESSA requires states to administer consistent, statewide annual assessments in Math and ELA for grades 3–8 and once in high school. These tests must hit three pillars:

• Produce results that are comparable across districts and years,
• Provide valid subgroup data (race/ethnicity, disability, English learners, etc.), and
• Allow parents, educators, and policymakers to measure progress over time.

By shifting to an adaptive test while, at the same time, calling it a “field test,” New Jersey risks creating a new baseline. That could erase snapshots of recent proficiency declines and push public scrutiny to 2026. By that point, the new scale may already be entrenched.

In reading this, keep in mind that ESSA doesn’t allow a “reset” without federal approval – and yes this applies to field tests.

In the email to the US DOE, we highlighted four concerns:

1. Comparability – How will the results be matched to prior results?
2. Transparency – Field test status could allow the state to sidestep accountability for at least a year.
3. Subgroup Reporting – If the methodology is not clear, reporting on subgroups may be less clear.
4. ESSA Compliance – Federal law requires three things when it comes to statewide assessments:
   1. Validity (is the instrument used really measuring what we want to?)
   2. Reliability (can it measure it in a way that is predictable?)
   3. Comparability (can we use this to match up with prior results?)

The announcement from the NJ DOE that we wrote about last week did not provide any detail outlining how the test meets the mark in these three areas.

The issue isn’t just technical. If comparisons across years break down, the public loses one of the clearest tools for tracking whether our schools are truly improving or still struggling.

In the time following our first article, the NJDOE has released new information:

Aug 22: A Field Test FAQ was released that confirmed the test will use item sampling- raising further questions on how subgroup data will be reported.

Aug 22: Two memos mandating district training starting 09/08/2025:
NJSLA-Adaptive and NJGPA-Adaptive Fall 2025 Field Test: Mandatory Training and Other Resources

NJSLA-Adaptive and NJGPA-Adaptive Fall 2025 Field Test Information

Aug 22: Launched a new New Jersey Assessment Portal to house blueprints, manuals, and sample items.

Despite the new memos, FAQ, and training requirements, NJDOE has not provided details on our core concerns connected to comparability, subgroup reporting and ESSA compliance.

To date we have not received a reply back on any of our emails – if and when there are updates we’ll provide them.

As a non-commercial and ad-free, free platform, we rely on you to help us grow. If you value independent coverage of local government, please consider helping us out.

Read All Articles on Education

Subscribe to nj21st For Free

Our Commitment to Ethical Journalism