Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB1

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/31/25
• Refer: 1/31/25
• Report Pass: 2/17/25
• Refer: 2/17/25
• Engrossed: 2/19/25
• Refer: 2/21/25
• Enrolled: 3/20/25
• Vetoed: 3/28/25

Caption

An Act to renumber and amend 115.385 (1) (b); to amend 115.385 (1) (c); to create 115.385 (1) (b) 2m. and 118.30 (1j) of the statutes; Relating to: changes to the educational assessment program and the school and school district accountability report. (FE)

Impact

The bill mandates that the DPI aligns the cut scores for the Wisconsin Forward exam in English Language Arts and Mathematics with those established by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Furthermore, it requires that for standardized tests such as the PreACT and ACT with Writing, the same performance categories be utilized as they were in the 2021-2022 assessments. This alignment is aimed at giving a clearer indication of student performance and diminishing fluctuations in scoring criteria that could affect long-term assessments of educational quality and effectiveness.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1 (AB1) proposes significant changes to the educational assessment program in Wisconsin, focusing primarily on the accountability report published by the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) for public schools and school districts. Under the bill, starting with the report cards for the school year when the bill is enacted, DPI will adopt cut scores and performance categorizations once used in the 2019-2020 school year. This ensures a level of consistency and benchmarking against past performance metrics, which supporters argue could enhance the reliability of performance evaluations across the board.

Contention

Notably, proponents of AB1 contend that these changes could lead to a more stable and uniform assessment framework, benefitting students and educators alike by establishing transparent benchmarks for improvement. However, critics may voice concerns regarding potential limitations this could impose on adapting assessment criteria to evolving educational standards or local needs. They might argue that the reliance on previously established metrics could hinder innovative assessment practices that reflect current educational goals, potentially leaving certain student populations underserved in a rapidly changing educational landscape.