Graduation Requirements

and Measures
A Review of Performance Assessment
Implementation in Select States for the
New York State Education Department

Region 2 Comprehensive Center

September 2023
Jenna Howard Terrell
Senior Research Associate

Sarah Barzee
Director R2CC Comprehensive Center
© 2023 WestEd. All rights reserved.

The content of this report was developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education through the Office
of Program and Grantee Support Services (PGSS) within the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE),
by the Region 2 Comprehensive Center at WestEd under Award #S283B190057. This contains resources that are
provided for the reader’s convenience. These materials may contain the views and recommendations of various
subject matter experts as well as hypertext links, contact addresses, and websites to information created and
maintained by other public and private organizations. The U.S. Department of Education does not control or
guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of any outside information included in these
materials. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the U.S. Department
of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service,
enterprise, curriculum, or program of instruction mentioned in this document is intended or should be inferred.
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Contents
Executive Summary 1
General Case Study Findings 2

Introduction 3

Methods 5

Case Study Findings 6

How do the identified states use and integrate performance
assessments as part of a measurement system for students to
demonstrate college and career readiness? 6
What can New York (and other states) learn about performance
assessment implementation (e.g., challenges, successes) from the
identified states? 13

Appendix A: State Profiles 20

Colorado: Tier 1 20
New Hampshire: Tier 1 22
Oregon: Tier 1 24
Rhode Island: Tier 1 25
Virginia: Tier 1 27
Massachusetts: Tier 2 29
Vermont: Tier 2 30

Appendix B: Case Study State Interview Protocol 33

References 35
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Executive Summary
In February 2019, Chancellor (now Commissioner) Betty A. Rosa
committed to rethinking New York State’s high school graduation
requirements, and in July 2019, the Board of Regents (the Board)
announced that it would create a Blue Ribbon Commission
(Commission) to review these requirements and reconsider what
a New York State diploma should signify to ensure educational
excellence and equity for every student in the state. Since then, the
Board and the New York State Education Department (NYSED) have
undertaken a comprehensive and inclusive review of the state’s
high school graduation requirements.

The Region 2 Comprehensive Center (R2CC) is one of 19 such centers across the United States
and its territories. Funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, these regional centers provide high-quality, intensive capacity-building
services to state educational agencies, regional educational agencies, and local educational
agencies to identify, implement, and sustain effective evidence-based practices that support
improved educator and student outcomes. The R2CC serves Connecticut, New York, and Rhode
Island. In late December 2019, NYSED requested support from the R2CC, led by WestEd.
In fall 2022, the R2CC team completed an extensive information-gathering process that
consisted of a comprehensive literature review on the relationship between graduation
requirements and college, career, and civic readiness and success; a policy and practice scan on
state- and country-specific graduation policies and practices; and a stakeholder analysis from
in-person and virtual stakeholder meetings across the state of New York. The comprehensive
report was presented to the Board and the Commission in November 2022.

The report’s findings highlighted the array of testing requirements for graduation and the
importance of multiple measures for graduation based on the stakeholder analysis. NYSED
requested a scan of performance-based assessments across the country, and the R2CC team
began with a landscape scan of performance-based assessments across 12 states and/or
consortia that had been identified by the NYSED Performance-Based Learning and Assessment

–1–
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Network (PLAN) Pilot team last year. In consultation with NYSED, the R2CC team then narrowed
the scan to seven states to conduct deep-dive case studies with state and consortium leaders.
The case studies consisted of interviews and focus groups with state education agency (SEA)
staff or consortium leadership to understand implementation processes, successes, areas for
improvement, and lessons learned. This report outlines the general themes that emerged from
the case studies, followed by state profiles (which detail more information about the
implementation of performance-based assessments) for each of the states and the consortium
included in the data collection.

General Case Study Findings

Despite the case study states taking different approaches to implementing performance-based
assessments, a common theme shared by the states was that performance-based assessments
are used to provide more opportunities for students to demonstrate mastery of skills and
content. Case study states integrate performance-based assessments as a complement or an
alternative to traditional, multiple-choice tests. The following themes emerged as the state
interviewees discussed considerations and lessons learned for effective implementation of
performance-based assessments.
1. Intentional work should be done to align performance-based assessments with
standards, curriculum, and instruction.
2. Collaboration and involvement with teachers and administrators is crucial.
3. States and districts need to invest in building the capacity of teachers and leaders to
effectively design and implement performance-based assessments.
4. Allow for flexibility and adaptability in implementation.
5. Provide clear communication about what performance-based assessment is, what its
purpose is, and how it will be used.
6. Address inclusion and equity throughout the process.
7. Build advocacy and support to demonstrate the commitment to performance
assessments.

–2–
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Introduction
In 2015, the enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) created a renewed interest in
performance-based assessments across the country after a focus on standardized, multiple-
choice assessments under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (Maier et al., 2020; Parsi &
Darling-Hammond, 2015). Many states, districts, and institutes of higher education recognized
that using only standardized, multiple-choice tests did not demonstrate the full range of
students’ skills and knowledge (Guha et al., 2018). Performance assessments are one type of
assessment that states and districts are exploring and incorporating into their assessment
systems following NCLB under the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA).1

Performance assessments describe a continuum of activities to demonstrate mastery and

proficiency, ranging from constructing a response to creating a product to performing an
activity (Darling-Hammond, 2017). Performance assessments can include tasks such as essays,
authentic demonstration of learning (often found in career and technical education), portfolios,
exhibitions, and capstone projects (where several performance tasks culminate into a product).
Although there are some nuances in the literature about what a performance-based
assessment must entail (Bland & Gareis, 2018), for the purposes of this report to NYSED, we
conceptualized performance-based assessments according to the definition at the New York
State Education Department (NYSED).

New York State Education Department’s definition of

performance-based assessment
A performance-based assessment requires students to demonstrate or apply their knowledge,
skills, and strategies by creating a response or product or doing a task. Students’ responses or
performances are typically judged against standards or criteria in a checklist or rubric focusing
on the stages of skill development and what a student can do.

1 We note that many states incorporated performance-based assessments prior to NCLB, though the focus shifted to
standardized assessments under NCLB.

–3–
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Since the enactment of ESSA, researchers have focused on descriptive studies of performance-
based assessments or case studies within individual states. For example, Stosich and others
(2018) identified four strategies used by 12 states, including supporting classroom instruction,
graduation requirements, school accountability, and federal accountability. At the time of
publication, most states were incorporating performance-based assessments as part of their
classroom instruction or school accountability (Stosich et al., 2018). Other researchers have
studied districts or consortia to understand if and how performance-based assessments
support deeper student learning (Bland & Gareis, 2018; Evans, 2019; Guha et al., 2018; Kim,
2005; Maier et al., 2020; Marion & Leather, 2015). Each of these studies has demonstrated that
performance-based assessments are a promising practice for measuring higher-order thinking,
depth of knowledge, and college and career readiness.

Yet, the policy context is changing as states and districts are rethinking how to implement
performance-based assessments to measure mastery of content and skills after NCLB. As a
result, many studies published in the last five years are already outdated. This report
contributes to the growing research on performance-based assessment, with a focus on
implementation beyond smaller-scale initiatives. We highlight specific state-level policies that
include performance-based assessments as part of a more robust assessment system, including
the challenges and successes across the states, and lessons learned. Our primary goal is not to
advocate for performance-based assessments but to support the Commission in their
information gathering as they rethink NYSED’s graduation requirements.

–4–
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Methods
This report addresses the following questions:
• How do the identified states use and integrate performance assessments as part of
a measurement system for students to demonstrate college and career readiness?
• What can New York (and other states) learn about performance assessment
implementation (i.e., challenges, successes) from the identified states?

The study began with a landscape scan of 12 states identified by NYSED through the PLAN Pilot
exploratory phase. These states are in two “tiers,” the first including states with established,
statewide requirements or options for performance assessments (Colorado, Oregon, Rhode
Island, New Hampshire, and Virginia) and the second including states with emerging
performance assessment options or frameworks (New Mexico, Kentucky, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ohio, and Washington). The landscape scan included a review of
publicly available websites, documents, reports, and policies to understand the purpose and
history of performance assessments in each state, specific policies in support of performance
assessments, and how the assessments were implemented statewide. After completing the
landscape scan, the R2CC team, in consultation with NYSED, selected seven states (Colorado,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Vermont)2 in order to
conduct a more in-depth data collection through focus groups and interviews with state
department agency staff members. The interviews and focus groups lasted no more than one
hour and were conducted by the R2CC team using a semi-structured interview protocol
(see Appendix B).

2 Note that the in-depth case study included the Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Educational Assessment (MCIEA),
which is a consortium of districts implementing performance assessments with support from the MCIEA.

–5–
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Case Study Findings

How do the identified states use and integrate performance
assessments as part of a measurement system for students to
demonstrate college and career readiness?
The states take different approaches, but all use performance assessments to provide more
opportunities for students to demonstrate mastery of skills and content.

Each state representative who participated in the state interviews expressed that their goal for
performance-based assessments was to provide districts, schools, and students with additional
ways to demonstrate learning. Some also mentioned that one goal of performance assessments
was to provide a more meaningful way to assess deeper learning compared with traditional,
multiple-choice tests.3 States like Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Colorado implemented
performance assessments because of new legislation requiring proficiency-based or
competency-based education, updated graduation requirements, or essential skills. These
representatives said that the new policy left a gap in assessing this new approach to learning
and instruction; they sought an alternative that provided more flexibility to demonstrate
proficiency and mastery of skills. It is worth mentioning that not all of the states included in the
case studies were using performance assessments for graduation specifically, but the state
representatives still highlighted that the skills and content measured by performance
assessments in their state were capturing the key skills they wanted their high school graduates
to leave with to prepare them for college and/or the workforce.

Another commonality shared by the case study states is that performance assessments are
developed and selected locally. Each state emphasized that the power of performance
assessments is that they are developed locally and linked to classroom instruction. As one state
representative noted, “What we don’t want is for these to become the state assessments [that]
replace the local work, because the power is in the teachers really thinking about the students
and what they want their students to demonstrate.” For a quick guide as to how each state in
the study uses performance-based assessments, see the column titled “Purpose” in Table 1 at
the end of this section.

3 This was often mentioned in contrast to standardized tests administered statewide or as a requirement for graduation.

–6–
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

“We’re trying to create opportunities so students can elevate

their best work . . . and have it reflect who they are and what
they know. Then they can carry that with them forward, post-
graduation.”
— SEA Representative

While the states in our case studies were implementing performance assessments either as an
option or as a complement to traditional, multiple-choice tests, a key finding is that states are
approaching the implementation of performance assessments differently. This finding aligns
with recent research on performance-based assessments (e.g., Stosich et al., 2018). Some
states in our scan, such as Oregon and Virginia, have mandatory, established policies about the
implementation of performance assessments in their administrative rules or statutes. These
policies require the use of performance assessments for the specific grade levels and content
areas. For example, in 2014, Virginia required local alternative assessments, which include
performance assessments, for grade 3 history and science, grade 5 writing, U.S. history to 1865,
and U.S. history from 1865 to the present. The law removed the statewide standardized
assessment for these subjects and grade levels, and it required that districts develop local
alternative assessments in lieu of the standardized tests. This policy did not eliminate statewide
standardized assessments, however, as they are still given to students in other required grade
levels and subjects.

In Oregon, the legislature passed a bill in 2011 that required a local performance assessment in
grades 3 through 8 and once during high school. Prior to the legislation, high school graduation
was dependent on credit requirements. Now, Oregon requires students to demonstrate
proficiency through standardized tests, a local assessment option, or the Work Sample. The
Work Sample is a representative sample of student work and has more rigorous requirements
than other locally developed performance assessments, as they specifically assess the
proficiency of Oregon’s Essential Skills. This includes stricter guidelines for scoring and
administering the assessment and an official state scoring guide.

Other states have taken a more voluntary approach to implementing performance

assessments. Colorado and New Hampshire implemented them through voluntary professional
learning communities and highlighted that this approach was used to gain buy-in from districts
and schools interested in developing and implementing high-quality performance assessments.
Colorado piloted its performance assessment initiative as an option for its graduation
requirements (which include a myriad of options, including standardized tests such as
ACT/SAT), while New Hampshire piloted its initiative with a variety of grade levels and subjects.

–7–
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Other states don’t have a formal policy or initiative but encourage the use of performance
assessments for classroom instruction. Vermont and Rhode Island, for instance, have a
proficiency-based education system and encourage performance assessments that are
embedded in the classroom to demonstrate mastery for graduation, though there is not
currently a formal policy, statute, or initiative to support statewide implementation.4

“We’re not running away from standardized measures, we would

just like them to be used sensibly and placed properly in our
overall system [to measure learning] for kids.”
— SEA Representative

The information synthesized through the scan and case studies demonstrated that states are
integrating performance assessments into a broader assessment strategy. Even within states
where performance assessments are required for certain grades and subjects, this is only one of
the assessments that students take during the school year. For example, in Virginia, districts are
required to complete a Balanced Assessment Plan, which should indicate the breadth of
assessments (e.g., multiple-choice, performance assessment) used to measure students’
content knowledge and skills for each grade level and content area. Another example is
Colorado’s Graduation Menu of Options, where performance assessments are included as one
option for students to demonstrate mastery to graduate high school. Other options on the
menu include SAT/ACT scores, dual enrollment, advanced placement, International
Baccalaureate, ACCUPLACER exams, and industry certification. Massachusetts, a state without a
formal policy, requires students to sit for the statewide standardized assessment (MCAS) but
supports classroom-embedded performance assessments through the Massachusetts
Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment (MCIEA).

Each state has its own procedures for developing and scoring performance assessments,
though every state relies on locally-developed performance assessments that are developed
and piloted by teachers. Each state interviewee stressed that the local context was important
for the development of performance assessments, and while some states (like Oregon and
Virginia) provide resources such as student samples, there is still an emphasis on performance
assessment creation as a local endeavor. Almost all case study states mentioned that they
approached scoring as a collaborative process, where teachers develop and calibrate the
scoring rubrics together and then pilot the rubrics before making them available to others.

4 As noted in the state profiles (Appendix A), Rhode Island previously required performance assessments for graduation, but
this is no longer a state requirement.

–8–
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Some states (such as Colorado) emphasized the importance of a statewide approach to

implementation that included teachers in developing quality criteria and determining “non-
negotiables” for performance assessment design, which they called a key factor in the
development of high-quality performance assessments.

Of the states reviewed by R2CC, four (Colorado, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Virginia)
had established systems for ongoing professional learning and provided resources through the
state education agency or an intermediary. Colorado, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire use
professional learning communities and intermediaries to continue to provide support to
districts and schools for professional learning. Virginia relies on desk audits to inform the
technical assistance and resources it continues to provide to its districts to meet the regulatory
guidelines. Other states such as Oregon and Rhode Island rely on district professional
development or regional conferences for ongoing professional learning.

Table 1 provides a summary of how performance assessment is implemented in Colorado,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia.

–9–
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Table 1: Summary of Performance Assessment Implementation

Purpose Common
Subject/ Ongoing
State Initiative Policy Rollout (Stosich Who develops? scoring
grade level support
et al., 2018) rubric?

CO Collaboratively- Colorado’s Voluntary Classroom High school Locally Yes Through PLCs
Tier 1 developed, Graduation instruction; subject and developed by
standards-based Guidelines high school grade level educators
performance Menu of graduation varies
assessment Options

NH Performance None now; Voluntary Classroom Subject and Locally Yes Through New
Tier 1 Learning and formerly used instruction; grade level developed by Hampshire
Assessment IADA waiver formerly school varies across educators Learning
Consortium for under ESSA for and federal districts and Initiative
Education Performance accountability schools
(NH PLACE) Assessment of
Competency
Education
(PACE)5

OR Local OAR Mandatory High school Required in Locally Yes No

Tier 1 performance 581-022-115: graduation; math, scientific developed by
assessment Assessment of school inquiry, educators
requirement Essential Skills accountability speaking, and
writing;
encouraged in
other areas

5 See Appendix A: State Profiles for a more detailed discussion of the history of PACE and New Hampshire’s transition to NH PLACE.

– 10 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Purpose Common
Subject/ Ongoing
State Initiative Policy Rollout (Stosich Who develops? scoring
grade level support
et al., 2018) rubric?

RI Performance Proficiency- Voluntary High school High school, Locally No No

Tier 1 assessment tasks Based graduation; grade level developed by
aligned to Rhode Graduation classroom varies educators
Island Requirements instruction
Department of
Education
standards

VA Performance § 22.1- Mandatory School Grade 3 history Locally Yes Yes

Tier 1 assessment and 253.13:3.C accountability; and science, developed by
local alternative of the Code of classroom grade 5 writing, educators
assessments Virginia instruction U.S. history to
1865, and U.S.
history from
1865 to the
present

MA Massachusetts N/A, not a Voluntary Classroom Subject and Locally No Through MCIEA
Tier 2 Consortium for statewide instruction; grade level developed by and partner
Innovative initiative school varies across educators districts
Education accountability districts and
Assessment schools
(MCIEA)

– 11 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Purpose Common
Subject/ Ongoing
State Initiative Policy Rollout (Stosich Who develops? scoring
grade level support
et al., 2018) rubric?

VT Vermont Proficiency- Voluntary High school Subject and Locally N/A, in N/A, in
Tier 2 transferable skills Based graduation; grade level developed by develop- development
graduation Graduation classroom varies across educators ment phase
proficiencies and Requirements instruction schools and phase
performance Education districts
indicators Quality
Standards

– 12 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

What can New York (and other states) learn about performance
assessment implementation (e.g., challenges, successes) from
the identified states?

“Oftentimes, when people in the field hear the word assessment,

there is this belief that it has to be an interruption—stopping
instruction, it has to sit outside of that normal workflow. And so
I think that that misperception—and I don’t think that it’s unique
to [State]—I think that’s been a very long-lived misperception
about what assessment means.”
— SEA Representative

Intentional Work to Align Assessments With Standards and Curriculum

Each state interviewed by R2CC emphasized that performance-based assessments should be
aligned with standards and embedded into the classroom’s curriculum and instruction. The
state interviewees noted that this was an important aspect of ensuring that performance
assessments were serving their purpose, as one interviewee put it, “to provide assessment
opportunities that evaluate content and standards together using authentic, student-centered
methods.” Some states mentioned that a misalignment in assessment and curriculum could be
perceived as an add-on activity for teachers and could also feel “jarring” to students in the
classrooms.

An important point made by some interviewees was how Essential Skills, Transferable Skills,
21st Century Skills, and Portraits of a Graduate, developed by many states and supported
through performance assessment initiatives, factored into these assessments. These skills are
embedded into state standards and require that students demonstrate a range of skills such as
communication and collaboration. Two state representatives cautioned against treating these
skills as separate and distinct from the assessment process and advised taking care to
incorporate both content and skills into the performance assessment process. As one
interviewee expressed, “For students to successfully apply and transfer content knowledge,
they must develop and use their essential skills. Content is the vehicle through which students
demonstrate essential skills.”

– 13 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

“You can’t just have these big lofty goals around what you want
for your graduates and then [not align those goals to] the
opportunities you provide them for learning and for
demonstration. So that’s where we’re seeing a lot of shifts being
made. People are saying, ‘These are the skills we want our kids
to walk out of our buildings with?’ In order to get there, we have
to change things. And that includes looking at curriculum,
looking at the way students are engaged, looking at
opportunities for performance assessment, or competency-based
learning, or whatever that pathway is.”
— SEA Representative

Collaboration and Involvement With Teachers and Administrators Is Crucial

Interviewees also mentioned that collaboration among teachers, schools, and districts is crucial
for the successful implementation of performance-based assessments. First, involving teachers
in decision-making processes and providing them with resources, support, and time to create
high-quality assessments and rubrics led to more buy-in from teachers as well as more valid and
reliable measures of student mastery. Co-creation of assessments, resources, and rubrics
among teachers and leaders was emphasized as a key component of implementing high-quality
performance-based assessments.

In Colorado, for example, the implementation of performance-based assessments has been a

collaborative process with educators across the state. In partnership with teachers, Colorado
developed design elements and quality criteria for performance assessments, along with
templates and protocols to support their development. Teachers engaged in peer-to-peer
feedback to improve the design and methodology they used to develop performance
assessments. They also participate in scoring performance assessments collaboratively. That is,
more than one teacher scores student performance assessments independently and then the
teachers come to a consensus on a single score by discussing a co-created rubric.

In Virginia, interviewees highlighted that collaborative scoring sessions were a way to enhance
teachers’ understanding of rubrics and promote buy-in. State representatives reported that
teachers who have engaged in such activities showed greater support for performance
assessments and a willingness to put in the necessary effort.

– 14 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Furthermore, at least three states highlighted that teachers who actively engaged in the design
processes acted as “ambassadors,” continuing to lead and support other teachers within their
districts and in other districts. In Rhode Island, a former principal noted that teachers in their
school would collaborate across different grade levels and subject areas to develop common
performance assessments. In addition, the school would use faculty development days to
collaboratively score high school performance assessments so that the burden of scoring did
not fall on one teacher or one subject area.

“It creates a culture and capacity where folks rely on one another
even when they move from one place to another. We’ve had
teachers move to other systems and transform their entire
science departments into performance assessments. There’s a lot
of power in that.”
– SEA Representative

While there was flexibility in how districts and schools approached performance assessments,
there was an emphasis on collaboration and high-quality practices. Some states acknowledged
that, as one state expressed it, “A supportive leadership message from the top is essential for
successful implementation.”

Implementation of Performance Assessments Requires Ongoing

Capacity Building and Professional Learning
States and districts need to invest in building the capacity of teachers and leaders to design
and implement performance assessments effectively. State representatives commented that
developing, piloting, and testing performance assessments and scoring rubrics takes significant
time and requires initial professional learning to transition teachers to a performance
assessment mindset as well as ongoing professional learning. Having the intermediary capacity,
whether through an external consultant or agency, to support and drive the implementation of
performance-based assessment systems has also been helpful for New Hampshire, MA-MCIEA,
and Colorado. These intermediaries or agencies can provide guidance, professional
development, and resources to support educators in effectively implementing the assessments.
As one state noted, “the work of performance assessments is much closer to the ground than a
state agency can typically get, nor is it always their charge.” In contrast, some states without
intermediaries acknowledged staffing and capacity limitations in terms of professional learning
and support from the state agency. These states reported that they relied on regional service

– 15 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

districts or district-led professional learning, which left some state interviewees feeling
disconnected from what districts, schools, and educators needed to improve implementation.

Allow for Flexibility and Adaptability

Each state’s journey with performance-based assessments has been marked by adjustments
and revisions based on lessons learned. Some states, such as Colorado and New Hampshire,
began implementation with a pilot group of districts. Other states that enacted statewide
policies for performance-based assessments, like Virginia, noted that the policy was refined
over time. State interviewees reported that flexibility in implementation, such as allowing
districts to choose their entry points and tailor assessments to their needs, or starting with
more flexible requirements and tailoring them to fit the needs of the districts and schools, has
been beneficial.

For example, in Colorado, some districts have implemented districtwide performance

assessments, while others have individual teachers creating their own assessments. Lessons are
being learned as the implementation progresses, and the state aims to encourage knowledge
sharing to influence the revision of assessment practices. In Virginia the state guidelines were
rolled out immediately, but they allowed for flexibility to account for the capacity-building
period that was necessary for teachers to move into a different way of thinking about learning
and assessment. Under the initial model in New Hampshire, Performance Assessment of
Competency Education (PACE), districts could opt into different participation levels.
Interviewees credited this tiered approach with building buy-in and trust, allowing educators to
opt in to the initiative at a level they were comfortable with. The PACE initiative, now
Performance Learning Assessment of Consortium for Education (NH PLACE), is using the lessons
learned in previous iterations to improve professional learning and support to the partner
districts.

Another aspect of flexibility emerged within states that required one type of assessment,
whether that was primarily multiple-choice tests or performance-based assessments. State
representatives highlighted that districts often requested more flexibility in the types of
assessments offered, adding that when any assessment was implemented without a clear
purpose, it became a checkmark for compliance rather than a meaningful assessment of
student learning. A unique example of how one state is examining its assessment portfolio is
Virginia, a state that requires districts to develop Balanced Assessment Plans outlining the type
of assessment used for all course content and subjects. These plans examine the breadth of
assessments required for all students and identify those that do not serve instructional
purposes, are redundant, or might be replaced by new assessments that can more accurately
measure content and skills.

– 16 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Engaging in Clear Communication About Performance Assessments

States interviewed by R2CC discussed the importance of communication about performance
assessments at all levels. They acknowledged that communication should begin at the state
level, with one state interviewee noting, “Clear guidance at the state level communicates both
permission and a real assessment of learning.” Some states also expressed that communication
from the state can outline the design criteria and “non-negotiables” so that districts and
schools can work within a framework.

Another aspect of communication frequently cited by interviewees was communication with

families. Most states said they try to provide clear communication about what performance
assessment is (and is not) and what the opportunities are for students. Some states noted a
challenge in communicating with parents and communities that may only have experience
under a traditional grading system. States said they emphasize that performance-based
assessments provide an opportunity to move away from traditional standardized tests and offer
students choice and voice in demonstrating their learning. Interviewees also noted that it’s
important to work with parents, communities, and and other interested groups to co-design
and provide input about the performance assessment guidelines.

Ensuring Equity and Inclusion Throughout the Process

Most states voiced that performance assessments provide more equitable opportunities for
students to use prior learning and their unique backgrounds to showcase their learning. State
interviewees offered examples of students who performed poorly under traditional grading
systems or were disengaged in many subject areas but who excelled when performance
assessments were included in their classrooms. Some states also noted that performance
assessments did not guarantee equity.

Three concerns surfaced during the interviews when equity was discussed in relation to
performance-based assessments. The first concern was that performance assessments could be
perceived as being less rigorous and that students who did not perform well could be tracked
into a remedial pathway (if the pathway were optional) or that students could be excluded
from enrichment activities if they were tracked into a remedial performance assessment
activity (if the pathway were a requirement). The second concern regarded inequity in quality
implementation across districts due to varying capacities of teachers and leaders. The third
concern was about inequitable or unreliable performance of assessment scoring.

Some states mentioned that they addressed the first and third concerns by creating “non-
negotiables” about the expectations and quality of performance assessments, which helped
alleviate concerns that performance-based assessments are somehow less rigorous than other
assessment options. As one state emphasized, “These options are not meant as a hierarchy;
they’re flat.”

– 17 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

State interviewees also highlighted that creating a clear rubric and providing the rubric to
students can reduce this grading bias. At the state level, the development of standard practices
and processes to norm and score tasks and assessments can also provide clear guidance to
address equity concerns around scoring. Finally, states mentioned the ongoing capacity-
building and the use of an intermediary to drive professional learning for performance
assessments as a way to alleviate uneven quality of implementation. They stressed that having
a process to know and understand where implementation was successful and where it needed
improvement, as well as the capacity and resources to address it, was critical to ensuring equity
in access to high-quality performance assessments.

Some interviewees also called out the importance of multiple pathways and diverse
demonstrations of knowledge in order to avoid a gatekeeper mentality. They also emphasized
the importance of connecting with communities historically marginalized by assessment
practices and incorporating community perspectives and ways of knowing into the assessment
process as a way to address the first equity concern. Other states noted that special attention
should be given to addressing the needs of diverse student populations, including language
learners and students with disabilities. Performance assessments should be designed to be
inclusive and provide opportunities for all students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills.
For example, Colorado and Oregon emphasize the importance of considering language learners
by allowing performance assessments for some subjects (e.g., English language arts in Oregon)
in their home language.

“One of the things to think about any time we’re doing large-
scale assessments that have significant consequences, such as
graduation, is making sure we are connecting with communities
who have been traditionally and historically harmed by the
assessment process—being able to honor and affirm different
identities and ways of knowing and then being able to have that
surface in the performance assessment and the tool that’s being
used to measure it . . . Because without those pieces and without
that conversation, we will continue to perpetuate harm.”
— SEA Representative

– 18 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Advocacy and Funding Support

States with emerging implementation of performance assessments stressed that advocacy
efforts at the state level, including engaging with policymakers, can influence the
implementation and recognition of those assessments. State interviewees stressed that
building support among policymakers and securing dedicated funding for performance
assessment initiatives demonstrates to local school districts and schools that there is a
commitment from the state, which can drive policy changes and further support
implementation efforts. Interviewees also emphasized the importance of engaging teachers’
unions as well as superintendent and principal associations to build buy-in and advocacy.

“You could have a district that is advanced in performance

assessment and formative assessment practices. And then a new
lead comes in and says, ‘Well, we’re going to buy this curriculum
and use these assessments,’ and teachers are going to just go
with that. And, well, that creates just a real mess out there. If
I were in a state really trying to do this at the state level now,
I would be really working closely with the superintendent and
principals’ associations, as well as curriculum directors, because
those are the folks who are making those decisions.”
— SEA Representative

– 19 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Appendix A: State Profiles

Colorado: Tier 1

History
In 2019, the Colorado Department of Education launched a pilot initiative with five schools
across four districts to develop and implement collaboratively developed, standards-based
performance assessments (Diaz-Billeo & Pierre-Louis, 2021). The catalyst for this work was the
new Graduation Guideline Menu of Options, which included performance-based assessments
as one option for students to demonstrate postsecondary and work readiness. During the pilot,
participants identified the essential skills that aligned with Colorado’s Academic Standards and
would be assessed by the performance-based assessments. Additionally, participants
developed a common rubric to assess and score quality (Diaz-Billelo et al., 2021). After the two-
year pilot, the work shifted to developing professional learning communities to develop and
norm performance-based assessments across the state. This work has continued with
educators from 38 school districts.

Relevant Policy/Legislation
Colorado does not have a formal policy or statutory requirement to develop or implement
performance-based assessments. These assessments are included as an option for students to
demonstrate postsecondary and workforce readiness. As a local-control state, Colorado has
high school graduation requirements set by local school boards, but boards can select from a
menu of options developed by the Colorado Department of Education, which includes
collaboratively developed, standards-based performance assessments.

Implementation
Implementation of the collaboratively developed, standards-based performance assessments
began with five schools across four districts. During the first pilot phase, educators identified
which skills should be emphasized in building out performance-based assessments for
graduation (Diaz-Billelo et al., 2021). In the second phase, the Colorado Department of
Education sponsored a statewide professional learning community that focused on educators
developing high-quality examples of performance assessments to assess students’
demonstration of Colorado’s Essential Skills. The tools developed under the pilot included a
statewide scoring rubric. Colorado educators can now use an online platform that integrates a

– 20 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

variety of tools and resources. This professional learning community supports the use of
collaboratively-developed, standards-based performance assessments in their classrooms
(Colorado Department of Education, n.d.).

Definition
According to the Colorado Department of Education’s website, performance assessments are
defined as “an authentic demonstration of student knowledge and skills through the creation of
a complex product or presentation” (Colorado Department of Education, n.d.). The product and
process are intended to be relevant to students in order to prepare them for success in the
postsecondary and workforce world. The definition of collaboratively developed, standards-
based performance assessments in the Colorado Menu of Graduation Options is also very
specific about a culminating project where students apply the Essential Skills for Postsecondary
and Workforce Readiness through a product or presentation.

Relevant Subjects/Grades
Because the focus of collaboratively developed, standards-based performance assessments is
on Essential Skills, these assessments emphasize content areas such as math, reading, writing,
and communication and can be used as an option for high school students to demonstrate
postsecondary and workforce readiness in these subjects (Colorado Department of Education,
n.d.). However, districts or schools can develop common performance assessments for any
grade and/or subject combination.

Scoring Process
Collaboratively developed, standards-based performance assessments must be scored using
the statewide scoring criteria. This was developed under the pilot initiative. Performance
assessments used under the Menu of Graduation Options must be collaboratively scored to be
used as valid measures for graduation (Colorado Department of Education, n.d.).

Supports Provided
School districts that participate in the professional learning community (PLC) to develop and
implement collaboratively developed, standards-based performance assessments receive
support from the Colorado Department of Education. This includes access to a range of tools to
ensure that the assessments meet the statewide scoring criteria. PLC members also have access
to an online scoring platform.

– 21 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

New Hampshire: Tier 1

History
New Hampshire’s Performance Learning and Assessment Consortium for Education (NH PLACE)
is a product of the learning and evolution of the state’s Performance Assessment of
Competency Education (PACE). New Hampshire developed PACE as an alternative
accountability and assessment system to the statewide assessment system. In 2015 New
Hampshire received a waiver, the first in the nation, from the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
and then the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (Becker et al., 2017). The two-year waiver
included a pilot implementation period (2014–2015, 2015–2016), and the state then received a
one-year extension (2017–2018). In 2018, New Hampshire was the second state approved to
participate in the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA) under ESSA (State of
New Hampshire Department of Education, 2018). The primary goal of the PACE system was to
improve student outcomes by transforming instruction and assessment in classrooms across
the state (State of New Hampshire Department of Education, 2018).

Relevant Policy/Legislation
The state of New Hampshire does not have formal legislation or statutory regulations about
performance-based assessments. PACE was grounded in the competency-based educational
approach that the state adopted in 2005 through the New Hampshire Administrative Code,
Section Ed 306.27, which required high schools to award academic credit based on mastery or
competencies rather than seat time (High School Curriculum, Credits, Graduation
Requirements, and Co-curricular Program, 2005).6 PACE operated under a waiver for federal
accountability testing requirements from 2014–2015 to 2018–2019. At this time, PACE does not
operate as an assessment system for accountability, but rather as a tool to support classroom
instructional practices and student learning.

Implementation
New Hampshire’s PACE and now NH PLACE have relied on locally administered and locally
developed performance assessments that are aligned with grade bands and course
competencies. The early goal for PACE was to replace the large-scale assessment system in
New Hampshire, and its implementation included an opt-in for districts to participate in the
PACE system. Districts who applied and fully committed to the PACE system agreed to
administer common performance assessments for specific grades and/or subjects in addition to
local assessments. At the time, the common performance assessment was used to compare
district performance over time and to allow educators to collaborate in developing meaningful

6 Although New Hampshire piloted competency-based education in several high schools prior to this, we note the time period
where this became law.

– 22 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

assessments in their classrooms. New Hampshire allowed for a varying degree of district
participation based on participation levels. Level 1 districts fully implemented PACE as part of
their accountability systems by collaboratively developing the assessments, working with
external experts to ensure high-quality rubrics and scoring, then field-testing, implementing,
and refining those assessments each year. Other levels participated in different components of
PACE, such as professional development, but didn’t have to commit to the accountability
system. The shift from PACE to NH PLACE moved the emphasis from an accountability system to
one that focuses on performance learning in the classroom, more professional development
and collaboration among teachers and district and school leaders, and more student agency
and choice in the classroom (which then emerges in the assessments).

Definition
Performance assessments are multi-step assignments with clear criteria, expectations, and
processes which measure how well a student transfers and applies knowledge and complex
skills to create or refine an original product and/or solution. This can include portfolios,
exhibitions, student-led committees, or other performance tasks.

Relevant Subjects/Grades
PACE districts combined the statewide assessment system, common performance tasks, and
other course-specific or local performance tasks. The statewide tests were administered in
grade 3 English language arts (ELA); grade 4 math; grade 8 ELA and math; and grade 11 ELA,
math, and science. The move to NH PLACE allows teachers in any grade or subject combination
to participate in professional development and task design each year.

Scoring Process
Under PACE, common and local tasks were scored using teacher-developed rubrics, which
describe student work and evidence at different competencies (Becker et al., 2017). The scoring
process for common tasks involved teachers field-testing the tasks, revising them, and then
scoring student work. The rubrics were then revised to ensure inaccuracies or vagaries were
addressed. Scoring also involved a generalizability analysis by the Center for Assessment, who
conducted cross-district comparability analyses that were critical for accountability purposes
(Becker et al., 2017; Evans & Lyons, 2017).

Supports Provided
The New Hampshire Learning Initiative is the intermediary primarily responsible for the
professional learning and facilitation of performance task development.

– 23 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Oregon: Tier 1

History
Oregon’s early history with performance-based assessments began in the 1990s when Oregon
passed legislation allowing students to pursue and receive a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM)
and a Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM). Each of these options allowed local school
districts to develop their own assessments for certain subject areas, including through work
samples. Though these certificates did not ultimately achieve the intended implementation and
achievement outcomes, the legislation laid the foundation for the performance-based
assessment requirement that now stands in Oregon (Smith & Sherrell, 1996). In 2011, Oregon’s
legislature passed new legislation for graduation requirements that required high school
students to demonstrate proficiency in the Essential Skills and called on districts to administer a
local performance assessment in grades 3 through 8 and at least once in high school.

Relevant Policy/Legislation
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 581-22-0615 outlines the Assessment of Essential Skills, which
includes the requirement that school districts and charter schools administer a local performance
assessment for students in grades 3 through 8 and at least once in high school (Assessment of
Essential Skills, 2011). The local performance assessments must assess writing, speaking,
mathematical problem-solving, and scientific inquiry. Oregon suspended the requirement for
Oregon students to demonstrate proficiency during the pandemic through 2024.

Implementation
According to Oregon legislation, Oregon districts must adminster a local performance
assessment annually for students in grades 3 through 8 and at least once in high school. Each
local performance assessment must be standardized, use a common scoring instrument, be
embedded in the school curriculum, and evaluate students’ knowledge and skills in math,
science, speaking, and/or writing.

Definition
Local Performance Assessments, as outlined in Oregon statute, is an umbrella term that
encompasses many performance tasks. However, Oregon also has a specific definition for Work
Samples, which are included as an example of a local performance assessment if it is used to
measure Oregon’s Essential Skills. Work Samples have more rigid administration conditions and
must be scored using the State Scoring Guide (Oregon Department of Education, 2016).

– 24 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Relevant Subjects/Grades
Local performance assessments are administered in grades 3 through 8 and at least once in
high school. Performance assessments are also an option for high school students to
demonstrate proficiency in the Essential Skills. Students may opt to use a local assessment
option or a Work Sample (see Definition, above, for distinction) in lieu of Oregon’s Statewide
Assessment or another standardized assessment (Oregon Department of Education, 2016). This
applies to the following Essential Skills:
• Read and comprehend a variety of text.
• Write clearly and accurately.
• Apply mathematics in a variety of settings.

Other Essential Skills may also be assessed using a local performance assessment, such as
thinking critically, using technology, civic and community engagement, and global literacy
(Oregon Department of Education, 2016).

Scoring Process
Work Samples used to assess proficiency in Essential Skills must use the state-developed
scoring guide. Oregon Department of Education provides options for scoring responses to
questions (e.g., teachers scoring their own students’ work, scoring an anonymous selection of
work, student work scored by a third-party) (Oregon Department of Education, 2016). Districts
are also encouraged to use the state scoring guide for local performance assessments other
than the Work Samples, though it is not required.

Supports Provided
The Oregon Department of Education provides tools and resources to educators via its website.
There is a bank of Work Sample prompts for each content area, along with student anchor
papers and the scoring guide. Additionally, there are official state scoring-guide training
modules to assist with task development and scoring. The Oregon Department of Education
relies on the Educational Service Districts (ESDs) to provide local professional development and
support to the districts and schools that each of them serves.

Rhode Island: Tier 1

History
In 2003, Rhode Island became the first state in the country to establish a proficiency-based
diploma through its Diploma System (Sturgis, 2017). The system required that students
demonstrate proficiency in a set of courses and that two performance assessments be

– 25 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

completed. Under the current Proficiency-Based Graduation Requirements, students are

awarded a diploma based on proficiency of coursework in six content areas, which may include
performance-based assessments (such as a senior project, capstone, portfolio, or exhibition)
(Rhode Island Department of Education, n.d.). In 2017, the Rhode Island Learning Champions
developed cross-curricular performance indicators, scoring criteria, and student anchor work
that could be shared with educators across the state (Rhode Island Department of
Education, n.d.).

Relevant Policy/Legislation
The Council on Elementary and Secondary Education approved the Diploma System in 2003 and
the Proficiency-Based Graduation Requirements in 2016. These policies are governed under the
Secondary School Regulations (Rhode Island Department of Education, 2022). In 2022, the
Council on Elementary and Secondary Education approved updated regulations to rethink high
school graduation requirements. At this time, performance assessments are not a requirement,
though local districts and schools can implement them for students to demonstrate proficiency.

Implementation
Performance assessments were initially used as a requirement for graduation under the
Diploma System in 2003. While performance assessments have been used as a requirement in
Rhode Island in the past, this was never used to withhold a diploma from students. Rhode
Island did not maintain the requirement for performance assessments to graduate but has
allowed districts and schools to use performance assessments as an indicator for mastery under
their proficiency-based system. As a result, some local districts have performance assessment
requirements while others do not.

Definition
Rhode Island does not have a publicly available definition of performance assessment, but the
website references senior projects, portfolios, capstone products, and exhibitions as examples of
successful performance-based assessment systems (Rhode Island Department of Education, n.d.).

Relevant Subjects/Grades
The Proficiency-Based Graduation Requirements outline the core content and mastery
experiences for students in high schools (grades 9 through 12). Performance assessments are
not required for students to demonstrate mastery in certain grades or subject areas.

Scoring Process
The Rhode Island has not adopted statewide scoring processes or criteria, as districts are not
required to implement performance assessments. A product of the Rhode Island Learning

– 26 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Champions work included scoring criteria for districts to use when implementing performance
assessments, though it is not clear how many districts are using the criteria and with what
fidelity (Rhode Island Department of Education, n.d.).

Supports Provided
The Rhode Island Department of Education offers resources developed under the Rhode Island
Learning Champions initiative. The state agency does not currently offer other professional
learning to districts for developing, administering, or scoring performance assessments.
Districts tend to collaborate with each other by sharing performance assessment resources and
processes.

Virginia: Tier 1

History
In 2014, the Virginia Assembly enacted legislation that eliminated five standardized
assessments that were required by all students in the state. Rather than administering the
Standards of Learning (SOL) test, as was traditionally required in those subjects and grade
levels, the state required that local school districts include local alternative assessments, which
may include performance assessments (Virginia Department of Education, n.d.). In 2019, the
Virginia Department of Education also encouraged each school district to develop Balanced
Assessment Plans outlining the type of assessment used for all course content and subjects,
with an eye to examining the breadth of assessments required for all students and identifying
those that do not serve instructional purposes, are redundant, or might be replaced by new
assessments that can more accurately measure content and skills (Virginia Department of
Education, n.d.).

Relevant Policy/Legislation
Legislation adopted by the 2014 General Assembly amended § 22.1-253.13:3.C of the Code of
Virginia to eliminate state-administered standardized tests for grade 3 history and science, grade
5 writing, U.S. history to 1865, and U.S. history from 1865 to the present (Virginia Department of
Education, 2021). Instead of the SOL assessment, the legislation required that each district
administer locally administered assessments, which may include performance assessments. Each
local school board must annually certify that it provides instruction and administers an
alternative assessment, consistent with Virginia Board of Education guidelines, to students in
grades 3 through 8 in each SOL subject area in which the SOL assessment was eliminated
(Accreditation, Other Standards, Assessments, and Releases from State Regulations, 2014).

– 27 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Implementation
Virginia only requires local alternative assessments for primary grades and does not require
performance assessments for high school graduation or for federal or state accountability
purposes. However, the Virginia Department of Education allows districts to provide an option
for a local performance assessment to verify high school English credits (one credit in reading
and one credit in writing). The Virginia Department of Education requires that local school
boards certify the instruction and assessments for the required grades and content areas. In
2019, the Department began encouraging districts to complete a Balanced Assessment Plan.
Additionally, the Department conducts annual desk reviews of a sample of districts each year to
provide accountability and technical assistance to districts. When legislation was originally
enacted, the change from standardized testing to a local alternative assessment was immediate
and statewide. Since then, the Department has provided more clarity on the guidelines and
built more capacity by bringing in external groups to help districts with their Balanced
Assessment Plans and provide districts with a review tool to understand how to measure the
quality of their performance assessments.

Definition
According to the Virginia Department of Education Assessment Literacy Glossary, performance
assessment “generally requires students to perform a task or create a product and is scored
using a rubric or set of criteria. In completing the task, students apply acquired knowledge and
skills. This type of assessment often includes a written component” (Virginia Department of
Education, 2019).

Relevant Subjects/Grades
Local school districts are required to implement local alternative assessments, which may
include performance assessments, in grade 3 science, grade 3 history, grade 5 writing,
U.S. history to 1865, and U.S. history from 1865 to the present. The Virginia Department of
Education also allows school districts to opt into state-developed performance assessments for
history, social science, and English in other grade levels.

Scoring Process
Assessments are locally-developed but scored using a statewide tool. The Virginia Department
of Education provides a common scoring rubric as well as the Virginia Quality Review Tool
which allows for examining the quality of each performance assessment.

Supports Provided
Virginia Department of Education’s website provides a breadth of tools and resources for
districts to use. Local school districts are encouraged to use the state-developed resources

– 28 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

provided on the Department’s website. Virginia Department of Education does not provide a
bank of performance assessments but encourages districts to share performance assessments
with each other.

Massachusetts: Tier 2

History
The Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment (MCIEA) was formed in
2016 with six districts to build a new model of assessment and a schoolwide accountability
system that “offers a more dynamic picture of student learning and school quality than a single
standardized test” (MCIEA, n.d.). MCIEA provides intermediary support to build the capacity of
school district administrators, building-level administrators, and teachers to create high-quality,
performance assessments that are embedded into the curriculum and generated by teachers in
the classroom. Since its inception, MCIEA has grown from six to eight districts, with the
governing board consisting of superintendents or their designees, as well as teachers’ union
presidents, ensuring teacher involvement in decision making. MCIEA is funded in part by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and partners with the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Relevant Policy/Legislation
In 1993, Massachusetts enacted the Education Reform Act, which resulted in the development
and administration of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), a set of
standardized tests in ELA, math, and science. MCIEA proposes to move away from standardized
tests toward a more robust measure of student learning, such as performance assessments.

Implementation
MCIEA is not a state-driven effort but, rather, operates as a grassroots partnership with
voluntary support for partner districts. MCIEA’s goal is to work with schools, districts, and
communities to “create a humanistic accountability system that is grounded in educational
equity” (Beyond Test Scores Project, n.d.). Within partner districts, curriculum-embedded
performance assessments are the primary measure of student learning. Districts undergo a
year-long institute with coaching, cross-district support, and dedicated resources for the
development and implementation of performance assessments. MCIEA also launched a
Performance Assessment Task Bank, which allows consortium teachers to submit and access a
range of performance tasks created by teachers within the consortium. Some districts have
MCIEA district-led teams comprising instructional coaches or other instructional leaders to
support and oversee the work.

– 29 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Definition
Performance assessment consists of
• an extended task in which students have opportunities for sense-making and problem-
solving and/or original thinking in the context of a phenomenon or unresolved
question;
• a method of capturing student work that is open-ended and generative, designed to
represent not only a solution, but also the student thinking that underlies that solution;
and
• evaluation criteria that describe how different aspects of students’ work can be
connected to substantive conclusions about what they know and can do.

Relevant Subjects/Grades
MCIEA advocates for performance assessments at all grade levels and subjects. Consortium
interviewees noted that the lower grades are the most difficult to implement because most of
the curriculum is skills-based.

Scoring Process
MCIEA works with districts during the year-long institutes to develop scoring processes that
generate high inter-rater reliability and promote high-quality performance assesssments.

Supports Provided
The University of Massachusetts at Lowell is the primary vehicle for the supports provided to
partner districts. Each district has also built enough performance assessment capacity that
teacher leaders now provide some of the coaching to other in-district teachers. After a three-
year pause due to the pandemic, starting in summer 2023 MCIEA will renew its year-long
cohorts of professional development and direct coaching to partner districts that request it.

Vermont: Tier 2

History
Vermont supports the development of performance-based assessments and in the coming year
will work with educators to develop additional resources focused on statewide implementation
of high-quality performance assessments within Local Comprehensive Assessment Systems.

In 2016, sample sets of graduation proficiencies that are specific to academic content areas
(e.g., math, English, science), and sample graduation proficiencies for transferable skills that

– 30 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

cross content areas (e.g., effective communication, creative and practical problem-solving)
were created to support the implementation of both Act 77 and the Vermont Education Quality
Standards. The Vermont Agency of Education has undertaken a revision process to improve the
requirements by collaborating with educators in the field to determine the essential knowledge
and skills that students need to graduate from high school. This process involved constructing
overarching Proficiency-Based Graduation Requirements (PBGRs) that reflect what it means to
be literate in a content area, identifying Critical Proficiencies aligned with PBGRs, and creating
Priority Performance Indicators that will be taught and assessed. The number of indicators has
been significantly reduced to support depth of learning rather than breadth. Additionally,
quality criteria documents have been established for reviewing and refining these components
of the Vermont Framework for Proficiency.

In terms of performance assessments, the Vermont Agency of Education aims to work with
educators to construct assessments that are aligned with Priority Performance Indicators. The
plan is to involve content experts in developing the assessments, conduct calibration exercises
to ensure consistent scoring, and make the assessments available statewide. The process of
building performance assessments is scheduled to begin in January 2024, with a focus on
developing assessments that require students to apply knowledge and skills to new situations
and demonstrate their level of understanding.

Relevant Policy/Legislation
In Vermont, the importance of performance assessments is reflected in the State Board of
Education Rules 2000, the Education Quality Standards. These rules require high school
diplomas to be awarded based on demonstrations of proficiency. The Education Quality
Standards also require that high-quality assessment systems employ a balance of assessment
types, including but not limited to teacher- or student-designed assessments, portfolios,
performances, exhibitions, and projects. Additionally, Act 77 states that flexible pathways to
graduation are “any combination of high-quality academic and experiential components leading
to secondary school completion and postsecondary readiness, which may include assessments
that allow the student to apply his or her knowledge and skills to tasks that are of interest to
that student” (Act 77: Flexible Pathways Initiative, 2013).

Implementation
Prior to the pandemic, the Vermont Agency of Education facilitated convenings around the
state to support the development of high-quality Comprehensive Local Assessment Systems.
The issue brief Strengthening Local Assessment Systems for Personalized, Proficiency-Based
Education: Strategies and Tools for Professional Learning (Fitzsimmons, 2020) describes this
work and the role of performance assessments within a proficiency-based system. During the
2020–2021 school year, the Agency facilitated virtual sessions focused on project-based
learning and documented that process to share with the field. Performance assessments,

– 31 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

a natural component of project-based learning, allow learners to be assessed in engaging and

authentic ways. In 2021, the Agency released the document Essential Components for Ensuring
Local Comprehensive Assessment Systems Are Culturally Relevant and Equitable (Vermont
Agency of Education, 2021), which includes a variety of resources to ensure that assessments
are culturally relevant and equitable for all learners. Performance assessments provide a critical
opportunity for students to reflect and share their personal experiences and identities as
learners. As of January 2023, the Agency contracted with Great Schools Partnership to continue
a focus on performance assessments that will begin in January 2024, after the Proficiency-
Based Graduation Hierarchies are finalized.

Definition
N/A

Relevant Subjects/Grades
N/A

Scoring Process
N/A

Supports Provided
N/A

– 32 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Appendix B: Case Study State

Interview Protocol
[Foundational question] Is there a common definition of performance assessments in your
state?

1. Describe the history of performance-based assessments in your state, including the

initial rationale for implementing performance assessment and how that may have
changed over time.
a. How long have performance assessments been used in your state? Have there
been any interruptions?
b. Describe relevant policy or legislation related to performance assessments in your
state, districts, and networks.
c. Can you describe what the early goals were for performance assessment, and how
those goals have changed or evolved over time?
2. What role do performance assessments play in your state assessment system?
a. (Probe: the categories from Stosich and others [2018], minus federal
accountability)
i. Is it used for state (as opposed to federal) school or educator accountability?
(This category includes replacing state tests with performance tasks and/or
allowing performance assessments in nontested grades/subjects.)
ii. For graduation?
iii. For classroom purposes?
b. What types of performance assessments or tasks are permitted or required?
c. How are performance assessments developed? Assessed for quality?
d. Describe how rubrics are created for assessing student work under performance
assessments.
i. (Probe: state/local/educator)
ii. How did you develop the rubrics? What guided that work or decision-making
process?

– 33 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

e. To what extent are the needs of special student populations (e.g., ELs, SWDs)
supported and addressed with respect to the use of performance assessments?
If supported and addressed, what are the strategies or supports used? Describe.
3. Describe how performance assessments are aligned with curriculum, instruction, and
learning standards.
a. To what extent were there changes in learning standards and/or curriculum in
order to ensure performance assessments were embedded? If changes were
made, describe the process. Were learning standards, curriculum, and/or
instruction changed first?
b. To what extent are instruction and performance assessment mutually reinforcing?
4. What resources and supports are provided to districts and schools for implementing
performance assessments and/or implementing new standards to support
performance assessments?
a. Describe how teachers and school administrators can receive professional learning
or support regarding performance assessments or instructional approaches.
b. What do you see as the “key shifts” for teachers, school leaders, and district
leaders in moving to instruction aligned to performance assessments, and what
strategies best support them in making those shifts, including providing
opportunities for collaboration?
c. Were shifts needed in school operations or schedules in order to support
performance assessment?
d. Describe resources and supports provided to engage families regarding
performance assessment (e.g., changes in score reporting, assessment literacy info).
5. What are three main lessons learned that you can share for other states embarking on
this journey?
a. What challenges has your state faced in implementing performance assessments?
b. What would you have done differently?
c. What successes do you see or have you seen? Is there evidence that implementing
performance assessments is supporting your state’s and network’s goals?

– 34 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

References
Accreditation, Other Standards, Assessments, and Releases from State Regulations. Code of
Virginia, Chapter 13.2. Standards of Quality, § 22.1-253.13:3 (2014).
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter13.2/section22.1-253.13:3/

Act 77: Flexible Pathways Initiative, 16 V.S.A. § 941 (2013).

https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/16/023/00941

Assessment of Essential Skills, OAR 581-22-0615 (2011).

https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/essentialskills/Documents/es_oar_581-022-
0615_assessment.pdf

Becker, S., Thacker, A. A., Sinclair, A., Dickinson, E. R., Woods, A., & Wiley, C. R. H. (2017).
Formative evaluation of New Hampshire’s Performance Assessment of Competency Education
(PACE) final report. The Human Resources Research Organization.
www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/stateletters/nhpaceformativevalrpt2017.pdf

Beyond Test Scores Project. (n.d.). Education Commonwealth Project.

https://www.beyondtestscores.org/ecp

Bland, L. M., & Gareis, C. R. (2018). Performance assessments: A review of definitions, quality
characteristics, and outcomes associated with their use in K–12 schools. Teacher Educators’
Journal, 11, 52–69. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1174728

Colorado Department of Education. (n.d.). Collaboratively-developed, standards-based

performance assessment. https://www.cde.state.co.us/postsecondary/perfassessments

Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Developing and measuring higher order skills: Models for state
performance assessment systems. Learning Policy Institute and Council of Chief State School
Officers.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/media/92/download?inline&file=Models_State_Performanc
e_Assessment_Systems_REPORT.pdf

Diaz-Bilello, E., Anthony, J., & Landrum, A. (2021). Exploring the uses of performance-based
assessments to assess postsecondary and workforce readiness. Center for Assessment, Design,
Research and Evaluation, University of Colorado at Boulder.
https://www.cde.state.co.us/postsecondary/pacasestudysummary

– 35 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Diaz-Bilello, E., & Pierre-Louis, M. (2021). The Colorado performance-based assessment pilot:
Background and context. Center for Assessment, Design, Research and Evaluation, University of
Colorado at Boulder. https://www.cde.state.co.us/postsecondary/pacasestudypaper1

Evans, C. M. (2019). Effects of New Hampshire’s innovative assessment and accountability

system on student achievement outcomes after three years. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
27(10). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4014

Evans, C. M., & Lyons, S. (2017). Comparability in balanced assessment systems for state
accountability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 36(3), 24–34.
https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12152

Fitzsimmons, P. (2020). Strengthening local assessment systems for personalized, proficiency-

based education: Strategies and tools for professional learning. Aurora Institute. https://aurora-
institute.org/wp-content/uploads/strengthening-local-assessment-systems-for-personalized-
proficiency-based-education.pdf

High School Curriculum, Credits, Graduation Requirements, and Co-curricular Program, New
Hampshire Administrative Code, § Ed 306.27 (2005). https://casetext.com/regulation/new-
hampshire-administrative-code/title-ed-board-of-education/chapter-ed-300-administration-of-
minimum-standards-in-public-schools/part-ed-306-minimum-standards-for-public-school-
approval/section-ed-30627-high-school-curri

Guha, R., Wagner, T., Darling-Hammond, L., Taylor, T., & Curtis, D. (2018). The promise of
performance assessments: Innovations in high school learning and higher education admissions.
Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/promise-performance-
assessments-report

Kim, S.-E. (2005). Effects of implementing performance assessments on student learning: Meta-
analysis using HLM. [Doctoral thesis.] The Pennsylvania State University, The Graduate School
Department of Educational and School Psychology and Special Education.
https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/5566

Maier, A., Adams, J., Burns, D., Kaul, M., Saunders, M., & Thompson, C. (2020). Using
performance assessments to support student learning: How district initiatives can make a
difference. Learning Policy Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610900.pdf

Marion, S., & Leather, P. (2015). Assessment and accountability to support meaningful learning.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(9). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1984

MCIEA. (n.d.). About. https://www.mciea.org/about.html

– 36 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Oregon Department of Education. (2016). Essential skills and local performance assessment
manual.
https://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/teachlearn/testing/resources/es_localperformanceasmt_m
anual.pdf

Parsi, A., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Performance assessments: How state policy can
advance assessments for 21st century learning. [White paper.] National Association of State
Boards of Education and Standford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562629.pdf

Rhode Island Department of Education. (n.d.). Proficiency-based learning.

https://ride.ri.gov/students-families/education-programs/proficiency-based-learning

Rhode Island Department of Education. (2022). The Rhode Island diploma system and
graduation requirements. https://ride.ri.gov/students-families/ri-public-schools/diploma-
system#16441117-performance-assessments

Smith, R., & Sherrell, S. (1996, December 1). Mileposts on the road to a Certificate of Initial
Mastery. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 54(4). ASCD.
https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/mileposts-on-the-road-to-a-certificate-of-initial-mastery

State of New Hampshire Department of Education. (2018). Application for the new authorities
under the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority.
https://www.education.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt326/files/inline-documents/iada-
application.pdf

Stosich, E. L., Snyder, J., & Wilczak, K. (2018). How do states integrate performance assessment
in their systems of assessment? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(13).
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2906

Sturgis, C. (2017, June 19). Rhode Island: Putting together the pieces of a competency-based
system. Education Domain Blog. Aurora Institute. https://aurora-institute.org/blog/rhode-
island-putting-together-the-pieces-of-a-competency-based-system/

Vermont Agency of Education. (2021). Essential components for ensuring local comprehensive
assessment systems are culturally responsive and equitable.
https://education.vermont.gov/sites/aoe/files/documents/edu-essential-components-for-
ensuring-lcas-are-culturally-relevant-and-equitable.pdf

Virginia Department of Education. (n.d.). Performance assessments and local alternative

assessments. https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/student-
assessment/virginia-sol-assessment-program/performance-assessments-local-alternative-
assessments

– 37 –
Graduation Requirements and Measures:
A Review of Performance Assessments in Select States

Virginia Department of Education. (2019). Assessment literacy glossary. In Resources from

VDOE for Any Content Area.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/20588/638043629084430000

Virginia Department of Education. (2021). Guidelines for local alternative assessments: 2021–
2022 and beyond. In Superintendent’s Memo #214-21.
https://vdoe.prod.govaccess.org/home/showdocument?id=9668&t=638025982762870000

– 38 –