OKLAHOMA CITY — State Superintendent Ryan Walters recently made a bold announcement that during the 2025-2026 school year Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) will allow districts to use approved benchmark assessments in place of standardized end-of-the-year state tests. While his announcement may be premature it has still stirred both cautious optimism and legal concern across the state. Since the announcement, the enactment of the proposal has simultaneously become clearer and more complex.
On Aug. 8, Walters announced the possibility of ending end-of-year state testing in both Math and English Language Arts for third through eighth grade students in favor of benchmark assessments chosen by districts. In a press release, overwhelming public support based on a survey of 23,000 parents that revealed 81 percent opposed state testing was cited.
“By moving away from outdated state tests and empowering local districts, we’re reducing the burden on students, parents, and teachers while ensuring high-quality education that is no longer driven by bureaucrats or outside groups,” Walters stated.
Optimism and Skepticism
Local superintendents have reacted by taking a measured approach towards the possible implementation. While optimism was obvious, skepticism was also.
“It’s been met with optimism that it’s a step in the right direction and skepticism that it’s actually going to be executed this school year,” said Jennings Superintendent Derrick Meador.
Cushing Superintendent Melissa Amon mirrored concern saying, “The process of ending state testing is far more complex than simply deciding it will end”.
For both Cushing and Jennings benchmark testing is already a factor. Amon said her school district has utilized NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) benchmarking for nearly a decade. Meador said his district uses STAR assessments.
“Most districts are already doing this and have been for years,” explained Meador.
Because benchmark assessment has already been incorporated into the school year Amon said there would be little to no impact on resources in the Cushing district. Meador said the state proposed format would result in less testing for his district.
“The state will only require us to do [test] at the end of the year with this new format.” Meador said. “Since we are already utilizing this type of assessment, we would incur less frequent testing and thus more instructional time.”
Agra Superintendent Jeff Kelly said more frequent testing would both take away from instructional time and help adjust instruction sooner — revealing the complex nature of the measure.
The superintendents generally agreed that benchmark testing offers a more accurate picture of student progress.
“Benchmark data is actionable meaning teachers are able to evaluate the data and make instructional changes accordingly — with this approach all classrooms should be data driven and strive to attain individual growth goals. The old system takes a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, where this model ‘meets-students-where-theyare’,” said Meador.
“Growth throughout the year is the only thing that can truly give an accurate picture of whether or not learning is taking place,” said Kelly.
Even so, a level of caution was prevalent for a number of reasons.
“We have very limited information about the proposed changes,” said Amon on Aug. 11. “A federal waiver is required and my understanding is that Oklahoma’s waiver has not yet been submitted — this process is typically lengthy and until Congress changes the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) or a waiver is granted Oklahoma must comply with current federal requirements.”
Meador echoed as much saying, “I’m hesitant that it will meet all the requirements since it seems rushed” and that a statewide change such as this, in his opinion, should take two to three years to effectively transition.
Kelly said he supported Walters’ sentiment implying that quarterly benchmark testing would be manageable and reduce anxiety. However, Kelly also voiced uncertainty about whether the proposal would meet federal accountability requirements.
Awaiting Federal Waiver
Currently, Walters’ proposal conflicts with existing state and federal law meaning the option to opt out of end of year testing has not been finalized and awaits a federal waiver approval. If the federal waiver is denied, districts say they will continue with the current testing structure.
“If the waiver is denied, it is my assumption that yearly state testing would continue as planned to remain in compliance with ESSA and to maintain eligibility for federal education funding,” said Amon.
Meador was in agreement adding that the district would be prepared to revert back to traditional state testing at any point.
The impact on instruction remains a key consideration. Some leaders see more frequent testing as an opportunity to tailor instruction sooner; others worry about the time lost to assessments. In our local, rural districts where resources are already stretched thin a concern for an additional burden was present. Kelly said that concern is misplaced since the issue has long existed, regardless of format.
“Because of high-stakes testing and the A–F report card attached to those tests, we already use formative and summative assessments in order to drive instruction. The burden is already there,” he said.
Meador said if things are done right he believes the measure will garner support adding that “the devil is in the details” and only time will tell if things are done right.
However, the lack of clarity around Walters' proposal, including how assessments would be selected, validated, and reported does not evidence attention to detail.
A public comment period that runs until Sept. 8 was opened following the announcement. After the closure of public comment the U.S. Department of Education will have 120days to decide to approve the request or not.
Prepared to Adapt, Waiting on Answers
Superintendents in Agra, Cushing, and Jennings stand ready—or nearly ready— to pivot to more frequent benchmark assessments, seeing potential for reduced student anxiety, enhanced instructional flexibility, and better alignment with realtime instruction. But they also share a common set of concerns: legal uncertainty, rushed implementation, and an absence of clear procedural guidance.
As of Aug. 18, the federal waiver had not been approved, and the plan’s fate remained undecided. Meanwhile, state lawmakers and oversight officials continue to question whether Walters can make this change unilaterally. As the waiver process plays out this fall, school leaders have tried to be adaptable; preparing for reformed as well as traditional testing — clear that any change should be built on a solid, lawful foundation which has yet to be seen.
For now, the education community is still waiting to see whether the federal government—and the details—will follow through.