The Christina School District will phase out its use of school resource officers at middle schools, and replace them with constables. 

Following a heated debate at a meeting earlier this month, the Christina school board voted to retain school resource officers (SROs) at middle schools for just six months, giving the district the time to hire constables as replacements. The officers will remain at the district’s three high schools for the full school year. 

The decision was the result of two votes by the school board. The first would have renewed the school resource officers’ contracts with the Christina School District. Five members on the seven-person board voted against it, including Amy Trauth, Celita Cherry, Stephanie Ingram, Doug Manley and Lauren Swain.

A subsequent vote approved replacing SROs with constables, who are direct employees of a school district rather than a police department. They would serve as armed security for the schools but wouldn’t have the same power to arrest individuals.

The measure was meant to be a compromise, balancing some board members’ concerns with having armed officers in schools and the need for school safety. 

But not every board member was satisfied.

“Since the police officers are required to be armed as part of their contract, I cannot support these contracts,” Manley, the only board member to vote against the compromise, said during the board meeting.

School resource officers are sworn police officers who work in schools but remain within the law enforcement chain of command. While supporters say they can effectively respond to dangerous situations, critics have increasingly argued they cause students to be arrested for actions that in the past would not involve law enforcement. 

News reports from  in recent years have highlighted the critiques of SROs. One report from Iowa said Black students and students with disabilities are more likely to be arrested or referred to law enforcement than other students. In , reporters have found thousands of use-of-force incidents in recent years.

It is not immediately clear if those trends hold true in Delaware. 

Spotlight Delaware requested data from the Delaware State Police regarding incidents such as arrests or detainment of students in the Christina, Brandywine, Red Clay Consolidated, and Colonial school buildings that did not fall under Wilmington Police jurisdiction, but was told the information would require a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request. 

By contrast, the Wilmington Police Department did provide data. A department spokesperson said its officers made one arrest during the past year at the Maurice Pritchett Academy and one arrest at the Bayard School. Both schools serve Christina students in first through eighth grade. 

There were seven arrests made at the Howard High School of Technology and 15 made at Brandywine’s P.S. duPont Middle School, the spokesman David Karas said. 

“The vast majority of these charges were not physical arrests, but rather an SRO issuing a summons or a juvenile civil citation,” Karas said in a statement. 

Karas also said that an officer would take other measures that would not involve “a formal criminal charge” during incidents that warrant immediate intervention, such as fights. 

An ongoing conversation

The Christina school board’s August meeting did not mark the first disagreement between board members about whether to renew SRO contracts.

During a May board meeting, Christina Superintendent Deirdra Aikens and Harold “Butch” Ingram, the assistant to the superintendent, presented three options for school safety. 

The first would be to make no changes. The second would be to keep SROs only in the high schools and replace them with constables in the middle schools. The third option would be to replace all SROs with constables. 

Though the board voted three months later to move ahead with the second option, some members say they have not received comments of concern from community members regarding the presence of SROs in schools. 

Board President Monica Moriak said the board did not have conversations with the Christina community regarding their thoughts on SROs in schools. She also noted that the last school year was “a very traumatic year, especially for Pritchett.”

Last October, a shooting took place near the Maurice Pritchett Academy in Wilmington’s East Side community, which is part of the Christina School District. Both victims attended Newark High School, . 

Moriak said she wants the board to hold follow-up listening sessions with community members, but does not know what those will look like yet. 

Manley also said he has not had community members approach him with concerns relating to SROs’ presence in schools. 

Instead, Manley said most of his conversations are about “educating them that constables and police officers are different.”

Balancing safety and accountability

For some board members, the conversation about school safety cannot end with whether a school has SROs. 

Board Vice President Y.F. Lou said the root causes of incidents, such as why students may be fighting or why there are “violent encounters,” must also be addressed. 

“That’s always where my guiding principle is: Can we prevent this? What can we do to prevent this? And what resources do we have to make sure that you know that preventative intervention is in place?” he said.

For other board members, the crux of the concern regarding SROs is whether they can be held responsible for any incidents that may occur, especially because they are armed. 

During the August meeting, Manley said he was against hiring “contracted police officers” because SROs “are not employees of our district; they are employees of their police troop.” 

As contracted police officers, , also known by its acronym LEOBOR.

Manley told Spotlight Delaware there is “zero transparency and accountability” for SROs because of LEOBOR. Advocates have tried for years in Delaware to reform the blanket protections for law enforcement officer’s privacy, but efforts to date have resulted in only partial transparency into the disciplinary issues of officers.

Manley also referenced the recent shooting of 19-year-old Kadir Skinner in Wilmington, which he said police did “for no reason.” 

The  that Skinner had pointed a gun toward a crowd of people prior to the foot chase, during which an officer shot the teen. 

This was originally published by .

Short of dropping a dead weight copy of the state Education Code on your foot, a State Board of Education agenda item on the normally wouldn’t evoke tears.

But Jessica Sawko’s tears earlier this month were spontaneous and heartfelt during her one-minute testimony before the State Board of Education. They expressed joy and relief over a win for science education a long time coming.

Beginning with the release of scores this fall, science scores will be a full-fledged metric on the state school dashboard. Science joins English language arts, math, suspension rates, chronic absences and other measures given equal weight on the state’s school accountability site. This will end a decade long campaign by science educators to give the subject equal standing in the School Dashboard. 

Sawko, director of education for the advocacy organization and the California STEM Network, wore a pair of earrings — a favorite among science teachers when standards were adopted a decade ago. As she thanked the State Board and Cindy Kazanis, who directs the school accountability division of the Department of Education, for “their commitment to science,”  her voice cracked, “I’m sorry, I’m emotional. It’s been like a decade.”

In 2013, along with two dozen states, the State Board of Education adopted the new science standards, known by its acronym NGSS. Six years later, California began giving a new science test to students in fifth and eighth grades and one year during high school.

Sawko and her colleagues have felt the sting of neglect. Science didn’t receive the funding for teacher training that math and English language arts received after the adoption of the Common Core standards.

Persuading districts to take the standards seriously has proven a tough sell.

“In 2016, it was a high priority for the that science remain a part of the accountability system, recognizing a clear tie between accountability and investment,” Sawko, who was executive director of the organization at the time, told EdSource. “Children Now also championed that same idea.”

The State Board adopted the science curriculum framework, providing advice to teachers on how to teach NGSS, in 2016, and approved a list of textbooks and teaching materials in 2018. It also put a bookmark for including science on the dashboard in the future. Students took the first CAST assessment in 2019.

Post-pandemic struggle to regain momentum

But any early momentum stalled when the Covid-19 pandemic hit in 2020. Hands-on science instruction, fundamental to NGSS, especially in elementary and middle school grades, faltered during remote learning, and California suspended statewide testing for two years. 

When students returned to the classroom, many districts focused on raising fallen math and reading test scores. Meanwhile, the State Board focused on adopting a new math framework and materials, and Gov. Newsom made early literacy reform a major initiative of his second term.

“You know the saying, ‘What’s tested gets taught,’ ” said Peter A’Hearn, a past president of the state science educators association. “We’ve always run up against sort of administrative indifference to science and to putting investment into science and professional learning in science because it hasn’t been one of the tested metrics.”

For the past two years, scores have appeared on the California School Dashboard “for informational purposes” only while the state Department of Education collected the three years of data required to elevate science to the state’s accountability system. In 2029, the state board will decide how to integrate science test scores and a new method of measuring student academic growth into a revised Statewide System of Support for determining which schools and districts need guidance and more intensive assistance.

Science education advocates hope the higher profile for science will make it a higher priority in districts’ budgets and in their chief academic planning document, the Local Control Accountability Plan. But they’re also betting NGSS, given the chance, will prove to be the secret sauce of learning — that elementary teachers will view science not as a competitor with math and reading for instructional time, but as a partner to their success.

“I’m thrilled to see science on the dashboard,” State Board member Haydee Rodriguez, a multi-subject teacher at Central Union High School District in Imperial County, said at the State Board’s meeting on July 8. “The skills that young people learn from science, the habits of mind, are so powerful, whether (or not) they become scientists,” she said. “To see the world of wonder and awe fills me with joy.”

Unlike traditional science instruction, NGSS incorporates hands-on learning that encourages students to apply scientific reasoning and the skills of inquiry and observation to the everyday world. Along with content knowledge, it stresses common patterns, relationships and cause and effect among the sciences — what it calls cross-cutting concepts. Students learning about El Niño, for example, might study the physics of ocean currents, the chemical changes in the ocean and the effect on plants and animals.

The two-hour computer-based California Science Test reflects that approach and includes several performance tasks that require analyzing data and applying scientific reasoning to real-world scenarios. An example of a performance task for third graders might involve creating models for the phases of the moon, said Megan Smith, STEM coordinator for the San Joaquin County Office of Education. Students, perhaps with younger siblings, would sketch the moon over the course of a month, then replicate what they observed in the classroom using a ball and a flashlight, and explain the moon’s orbit.

Because elementary schools often devote limited instructional time to science,  “NGSS authors were careful to focus scientific practices with overlapping literacy and math practices,” said Megan Taylor, chief teaching and learning officer for the Exploratorium in San Francisco, which runs a summer institute and year-round professional development programs for California teachers.

The disruptions precipitated by Covid also have created an opening, Taylor said, “a recognition that science practices and ways of thinking are through lines to helping learning happen — and way more fun.”

Advancing NGSS will require intensive teacher training, with a different mindset for classroom instruction. But there must also be dedicated instructional time and access to high-quality instruction, the science teachers association wrote in a 2025 paper,

Data are scarce, but a 2022 survey by the association found that only 55% of school districts had purchased NGSS curricula and materials.

Low test scores out of the block

underscore the inattention to NGSS. In 2024-25, 32.7% of students were proficient on the test, compared with 37.3% proficiency in math and 48.8% in English language arts.

In 2018-19, the first year of the science test, 29.9% of students were proficient.

The disparities among student groups by race, income and parent education in science also repeated the vast inequalities found in the math and English language arts scores:

• 18.6% of children whose parents had a high school degree were proficient in science compared with 43.9% of children whose parents graduated from college.
•  51.3% of non socioeconomically disadvantaged students were proficient compared with 22.3% of socioeconomically disadvantaged students.
•  60.8% of Asian students were proficient compared with 17.1% of Black students.

Low test results notwithstanding, behind the scenes, science advocates and educators have laid the foundation for the next stage.

Backed by state funding and foundation support, a partnership of the California Department of Education and the Los Angeles County Office of Education created an extensive online library of teacher-generated performance tasks for science teachers to adopt in all grades and subjects.

Using $50 million in state funding — the first major state investment in science education — the California Mathematics, Science, and Computer Science Partnership has created networks of professional development and teacher collaboration that have reached all 58 counties, said Smith of the San Joaquin County Office of Education, which is managing the project.

The and in Berkeley are national leaders in supporting science teachers with training and resources. The nonprofit in the Bay Area is advancing climate literacy with high school students and organizing them to create climate-resilient environments.

“There’s a great deal of professional learning support available to educators,” Sawko said. “It’s really a matter of whether or not school districts are supporting their education.”  

Sawko and other advocates will seek further funding when the $50 million grant runs out in June 2027.

New way to measure growth on test scores stirs criticism 

Along with science, the State Board voted last month to add another dashboard indicator that the California Department of Education has studied on and off for a decade – a measure of students’ growth on test scores.

But the version that the board introduced last year and reapproved again for releasing this fall –  not for accountability purposes – is facing sharp criticism for overstating improvement. The presentation on the dashboard “may cause confusion or even give a misleading understanding of student progress,” the nonprofit student advocacy organization GO Public Schools wrote in a (see pages 30-34).

Growth data measure how assessment scores have increased between the current and previous years and how that growth compares with students’ average growth statewide (see ). It can be used only for math and English language arts in grades four through eight in California, because students aren’t tested annually in science, and only once in high school.

California has been one of only two states without a growth measure for standardized tests, according to an analysis for by USC education professor Morgan Polikoff and Arizona State University researcher Shira Haderlein.

California has relied on a different method to measure yearly increases or declines on the dashboard. It compares the Smarter Balanced scores of the current year’s fourth graders with the students in last year’s fourth grade. This method is limited because it compares two different sets of children, and in some schools, the yearly student transfer rate is high.

Student growth data are useful because they can reveal whether students are falling behind or catching up over time  in which schools, demographic groups and grades. Starting this year, for example, California charter schools that argue students enter school grade levels behind but make big gains over time, even if they haven’t reached proficiency, will be able to use growth data to support their case for school renewal.  

Calculating growth can be complex, and states have chosen different models. One method, pioneered by Louisiana, lets parents see how many points on the test scale their fourth grader is from the proficiency level in math in sixth grade. That often can be a better indicator than grades of what it will take to reach proficiency over two grades.

California has chosen a method called the residual gain model. It begins by looking at each student’s individual point score last year on a Smarter Balanced test and calculates the average yearly gain for all students who had that same score. The same process is then repeated for students by points on the test scale, and finally calculating a statewide average gain.

The state then compares average scores of every school, district and student group with the statewide average and rates them on how many points they fall below or above average. Level 3 is in the middle range of five ratings; Level 5 is at the top, for 20 or more points above average and Level 1, minimal, for 20 or more points below average.

The state has collected the data for three years, but the results won’t appear on the dashboard this fall; those who are interested have to .

“We are just frustrated that the state isn’t reporting the data from the growth model that they painstakingly designed on the dashboard, and instead requires districts, schools and parents/community groups interested in growth to download the data file (and then extract from that file growth data for their school or district,” said Rob Manwaring, senior policy adviser for Children Now.

Instead, it is displaying a puzzling alternative. It is comparing schools, districts and student groups by the percentage of students whose scores increased from the previous year – with an increase defined as a single scale point. Then it rates those percentages with a color rating, using different colors than assigned to other dashboard measures. Schools with a 75% increase were rated average, while a 62% increase was rated “moderate” or Level 2.

“Many schools and districts appear to have very high percentages of students making progress, even when other indicators show little or no improvement,” wrote GO Public Schools. “This overly rosy picture could reduce a sense of urgency to make necessary changes to better serve students.”

David Wakelyn, a partner at , which researches efforts to improve literacy achievement, and a former middle school English teacher in Inglewood, elaborated on that point in an email: “A 1-scale-score point gain between 3rd and 4th grade represents 4 days of learning. Would any normal human celebrate that if it’s what was accomplished in a school year???”

“Celebrating 1 point of scale score growth when kids need 25-50 scale points damages the Board’s credibility and misses the opportunity to be honest about what struggling kids need to succeed,” he wrote. “No one is well-served by it.”

“No other states use a metric of students who made a one-point scale score gain as their indicator,” said Manwaring.

Asked about the criticism, the Department of Education responded in an email. “We have heard the concerns raised and the SBE has asked CDE to revisit the design of the Dashboard Growth Data Cards to include this scale score point metric (average scale score above/below predicted) for the 2027 Dashboard, following public feedback received.”

The department will issue a memo, probably in August, summarizing its plans.  

This story was originally published by . Sign up for their .

Long story short, our divisions and the dysfunctional governance are painfully, visibly real. 

As we start the country’s 251st year, we need to restore public confidence in the effectiveness and legitimacy of our whole political system. That starts by showing the country that American public institutions can work, that they can do the jobs that our democratic officials set for them — and deliver the opportunities and outcomes that the public expects of them. 

We need a firm commitment to public accountability in every possible sense. That means more firmly committing to holding our public systems — including K–12 education — accountable to serving public goals. 

Sure, the solution to America’s flagging social cohesion must be more than new school accountability pilot programs. Of course. That would be like bringing a screwdriver to a hazmat cleanup. Our social tensions are far beyond . 

But the depth and breadth of America’s problems now are also why school reforms have a role in resolving our troubles. Public education is uniquely central to the most elemental promises of our 250-year-old creed. If America means anything, it means that people who work hard, follow the rules and find solutions to persistent problems get rewarded. Public schools are our most tangible collective commitment to that promised — however imperfectly — American Dream. Surely that’s something we can all agree on. 

Indeed, if Americans are divided now, it’s at least partly because that basic bargain isn’t as robust as it once was. A kid who grinds out years of K–12 schooling now can’t count on a . Work hard now, and she still might not be able to cover her health care costs, let alone buy a house where there are good jobs or save up for retirement. 

Young Americans feel the frustration. , the share of young Americans who believe the country is on the wrong track has been three to four times greater than the share of young Americans who think we’re going in the right direction. What’s more, just 30% of respondents said that they expect to do better than their parents, financially speaking. also broad pessimism about public schools.

A path forward for schools will require rebuilding public confidence in the public education system’s ability to deliver upward mobility to students — to future graduates — who show up, work hard and follow the rules. 

How? Local, state and federal policymakers need to set compelling, transparent goals for K–12 systems that reflect families’ actual priorities for kids and schools. For instance, fashionable as it might be to posit that public education needs to be remade with AI and other ed tech tools, about in schools is growing. Leaders can’t persuade families that schools are on the right track by ignoring the things families really want. 

And what might those be? While recently took to The New York Times’ opinion page to argue against the country’s accountability focus on math and reading scores under No Child Left Behind, it’s worth exploring whether Wiener has his finger fully on the public pulse. After all, when the Pew Research Center asked what’s taking schools in the wrong direction, more parents — — said that “schools are not spending enough time on core academic subjects.” 

I’ve long suspected that the pandemic reset American families’ views on schools and testing. Months of uncertain instruction and learning — and a drumbeat of media coverage about the pandemic’s impacts on student learning — left many families eager for more information about how their children were faring. Without some sort of standardized assessment, it’s almost impossible to efficiently track how students are doing. This is easier to appreciate after a major disruption like the pandemic — subjective evaluations or holistic, local rubrics are unlikely to provide useful, comparable data on students’ progress. 

We might not want to return to No Child Left Behind, but education leaders should consider whether schools need stronger incentives to get kids on track in core subjects. It’s not enough to establish public education goals — policymakers also need to make them matter for schools and educators. Whichever priorities we set for schools, we need to 1) track their progress towards these, and 2) build systems that provide resources and pressure for educators to prioritize that progress. 

To work best, accountability requires clarity about the outcomes we want to see. Effective school accountability systems need goals for student growth and benchmarks for academic achievement in each grade. Data on schools’ progress towards those goals should be published in easily accessible formats. Schools that persistently fall short shouldn’t be punished as they might have been under No Child Left Behind — instead, they should be given supplemental resources with strict strings attached that lead to meaningful school-level changes that will support better student learning. 

That’s accountability, and it’s a key element for building trust in public systems. 

If policymakers want Americans to believe in public institutions, they need to build safeguards like these for showing how these institutions serve the public interest. Notably, the simple, blunt, unlovely, unloved, imperfect No Child Left Behind accountability era coincided with , including for . 

Then, after — over my warnings, for what it’s worth — Congress replaced those priorities with a much looser, lower-accountability system under the Every Student Succeeds Act, . (For the record, I was unimpressed, even back then.)

A quarter millennium’s a long time, during which the American experiment has substantially evolved more than once. Like the 2026 reflecting pool — which has been — our collective project needs much more than a fresh coat of paint. 

To move forward, we need to reduce our suspicions of one another, increase our levels of social trust and reimagine just what it is we’re trying to be together as a country. That means rebuilding trust in public, democratically accountable systems. Where better to rebuild that faith than in public education?

The views expressed here are Conor P. Williams’s alone, and do not reflect those of his employer or any other affiliated organizations.

Why the Classic Learning Test, which embraces Aristotle but spurns calculators, has caught Indiana’s eye

A test that relies on classic Western texts and bans calculators for math will soon play a role in assessing how well Indiana students and schools are doing.

Since February, Indiana has expanded the use of the Classic Learning Test in two key ways. First, a new law requires state colleges and universities to consider CLT scores to the same extent that they would consider SAT or ACT scores for admission.

Second, under a new state accountability model that gives schools an A-F grade based on points students earn for proficiency, the Classic Learning Test is one way high school students can earn bonus points for their schools’ grades. The Indiana State Board of Education approved the use of the test at the last minute when adopting the new A-F model in March. It was not part of previous drafts of the model.

The Classic Learning Test’s expansion is part of a in Indiana and by conservatives to counter what they see as an education system that leans too progressive by providing alternatives they believe are more rigorous and in line with Western tradition.

The elevation of the CLT follows state leaders’ decision in 2024 to in Indiana higher education, a move seen by many as a boon to conservatives on campuses, as well as previous years’ efforts to that could make students feel guilt or . This year, lawmakers also required higher education leaders to explore — in line with .

Supporters of the CLT say they like the test because it assesses students’ reading skills with texts that are foundational to the country’s history. That also aligns with a to foster “a shared understanding of America’s founding principles” on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

But there’s also practical reason to welcome the CLT, supporters say: It shakes up a long-standing testing establishment that gave students just two options for college readiness testing — the SAT or the ACT. That reflects the school choice environment that includes a growing number of classical schools.

“The CLT is the first newcomer since Eisenhower was president,” said Michael Torres, director of legislative strategy for the CLT. “We offer an opportunity for our students to prove they’re ready for college based on the curriculum they use.”

But critics counter that there is not enough evidence to say a CLT score is on par with a score on the SAT or the ACT — especially when the scores are used for high-stakes decisions about school accountability and college admissions.

“It especially matters to make sure that kind of mathematical relationship between the scores is stable and well-founded when there are any consequences in how these tests are used,” said Priscilla Rodriguez, senior vice president for College Readiness Assessments at the College Board, which administers the SAT.

Indiana could eventually decide to let students using vouchers to attend private schools take the CLT instead of the ILEARN state exam that voucher students must now take. A private school leader raised that idea during the legislative session, and CLT officials would support it, Torres said.

But that could make it harder to compare how private school students are performing compared with their peers in public schools. Indiana officials have not discussed this idea publicly.

As Indiana expands the use of the CLT, the state should want to ensure the test it’s well-suited to its academic content standards, measures for school quality, and its goals for students, said Chris Domaleski, executive director of the Center for Assessment. The state advisory committee that focuses on required assessments did not weigh in on including the CLT for school accountability because it’s an optional test, Indiana Department of Education officials said.

“The more it’s used, the more we need to seek evidence that it’s useful, that it has reliability, validity, and fairness, for all student groups, including students with disabilities and multilingual learners,” Domaleski said. “All those kinds of questions we’d ask for any assessment used in a consequential way.”

How do Classic Learning Test scores stack up?

The CLT for juniors and seniors is a two-hour, 120-question test developed in 2015 by founder Jeremy Tate, who “saw there might be interest in a third option that proved students are ready to go to college but didn’t force schools to embrace the Common Core,” Torres said, referring to the state standards that some conservatives came to distrust. Classic Learning Initiatives, the company behind the test, also offers a CLT for grades 3-8 and a 10th grade test.

The CLT uses passages by a bank of Western writers from the ancient to the late modern times — the most recent listed is author Toni Morrison — as well as contemporary nonfiction texts.

Sample questions on “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” for example, ask students to determine based on the passage the reason that caused the gods to flood the land, and determine which lines in the poem support the argument.

Critics say this focus promotes of culture and society — and that the test offers an advantage to students familiar with the pieces. Still, classical schools and educators say these works are fundamental to all students’ understanding of history.

“When we talk about college readiness, what are we talking about? Is it the use of AI? Is it being able to critically think, look at passages, look at historical text?” said Kylene Varner of the Indiana Association of Home Educators, who supported the bill to require colleges to consider CLT results like SAT and ACT results. “If we can’t understand the culture and history … and the writing of our Constitution, how do we learn?”

There are also differences on the math portion of the test, where the CLT does not allow calculators; Torres said that means students must show they are “independently numerate.”

And around 15% to 20% of test-takers utilize a remote option not available on the SAT or ACT, Torres said. This option is important to home-schoolers who may not have access to other tests, Varner said.

But what makes the CLT stand out has in turn raised questions about whether comparing scores from the test to results from other exams can be misleading.

The CLT has published between CLT scores and SAT and ACT scores. Torres said the study behind that table relied on a sample of about 4,500 students and produced reliable results. He noted that in addition to self-reported scores, the company received some scores from the colleges that accept CLT, SAT, and ACT scores.

But representatives from the ACT and SAT . To establish that one score on the SAT reliably correlated to a score on the ACT, the College Board and the ACT jointly examined the scores of more than 500,000 students who had taken both exams, said Colin Dingler, ACT’s chief policy analyst.

In addition to a smaller, less-representative sample size, there are two other key issues with CLT’s score comparison, Rodriguez said: The students’ SAT scores were self-reported, and that sometimes years had passed between the two tests.

Ultimately, it would be unfair if two tests had different passing scores, and one was easier to pass than the other, but some students only had access to the harder test, Dingler said.

“It’s very important from an equity standpoint to have some scientifically established tool to go from the scores of one assessment to another assessment,” he said.

How the CLT factors into school quality, college readiness

One of the primary uses of test scores is to indicate that a student is ready for college.

A handful of private colleges in Indiana — along with around 300 nationwide — already accept the CLT scores, and the .

But few K-12 schools offer the test right now, state education officials said, and most public universities in Indiana don’t require any test scores for admission, although Purdue University is a notable exception.

Supporters of the CLT, including leaders of private classical K-12 schools in Indiana who testified in support of it earlier this year, said the test is for measuring students’ college readiness — or .

Not everyone agrees. Iowa in 2024 recommended against the use of the CLT for admission to its public universities, about the academic performance of the students who took it.

A key question for assessing college readiness is whether a test based on a prescribed curriculum is gauging students’ knowledge of that curriculum, rather than their general readiness for college-level classes. Even in subjects like science, the ACT is written so that students without a familiarity with a specific scientific concept can figure out the question, Dingler said.

“I don’t think that philosophically, there’s something wrong with assessments that are anchored in content or a specific reading list,” Dingler said. “But I do think that using the results of that test to generalize that any student is ready to succeed or to do well … that’s a really different matter.”

Torres said that while classical schools have embraced the test, familiarity with the texts is not a prerequisite for success on the CLT.

“It merely uses those texts to test reading comprehension and grammar,” Torres said. “We find that to be a rigorous measure of college readiness.”

Test scores also play a role in assessing Indiana school quality.

Students’ SAT proficiency will make up 10% of a high school’s letter grade on the state’s new A-F accountability model. But the state’s decision to let schools earn accountability bonus points through student scores on the ACT or CLT might lead schools to push students to take the CLT, “where it may be easy to get a score that looks high compared to the ACT or the SAT but maybe actually isn’t,” Rodriguez said.

In a statement, the state education department said the school accountability system approach to the CLT balances “personalized pathways” with elevating “real opportunities for students.”

The test’s supporters like that flexible approach, which could play a role if Indiana considers letting students using private school vouchers take the CLT instead of the state’s standardized test.

“Allowing schools to use nationally normed assessments like the CLT that are also rigorous … objective, and publicly reportable, this respects both accountability and also educational diversity,” said Rachel Oren, head of school at the Classic Academy in Indianapolis.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at .