The National Assessment Governing Board, responsible for setting policy guidelines for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), has announced a series of standing committee meetings and a quarterly board meeting scheduled for February and March 2026. These gatherings, detailed in a Federal Register notice published on February 9, 2026, will address critical elements of NAEP's operations, including assessment development, budget considerations, and nominations for board membership. Held in a mix of virtual and hybrid formats, the meetings underscore the board's role in ensuring valid and reliable measurements of student achievement across the United States. This development highlights ongoing efforts to refine educational assessments amid evolving policy landscapes, with implications for how student performance data informs national education strategies.
Background and Statutory Role
The National Assessment Governing Board operates under the National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act, codified at 20 U.S.C. 9621. Established to formulate policy for NAEP, often called the Nation's Report Card, the board's duties include selecting subjects for assessment, setting achievement levels, and developing guidelines for reporting results. NAEP measures student academic achievement in grades 4, 8, and 12 in subjects like reading, mathematics, and science, providing data for regional and national comparisons. The board's work draws on input from educators, parents, and technical experts to maintain assessment integrity.
Key players in these meetings include Board Chair Mark White, who will lead sessions, and Executive Director Lesley Muldoon, who will provide updates on board activities. Other notable figures are Matthew Soldner, Acting Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and Gina Ruehl, NCES Director of Strategic Partnerships, both scheduled to report on NAEP administration and budget status. The meetings also feature external input, such as remarks from Michelle Cantú-Wilson on NAEP's role in Texas education and a presentation by Margaret Spellings, President and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center, on workforce challenges.
Schedule and Format of Meetings
The standing committee meetings are spread across February and March 2026, primarily virtual, allowing broad participation while addressing specific NAEP components. For instance, the Nominations Committee meets virtually on February 10 from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET in a closed session to review finalists for board vacancies, invoking privacy protections under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).
The Executive Committee convenes virtually on February 17 from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET, starting with an open session for updates on board work and Trial Urban District Assessment eligibility, then shifting to closed discussions on the NAEP Assessment Schedule to safeguard budget and contract integrity, per 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B).
Additional committee sessions include the Assessment Development Committee on February 26 from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET, open to review contextual variables for the 2028 NAEP Science Assessment at grade 8. The Committee on Standards, Design and Methodology meets closed on March 9 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ET to discuss automated scoring and achievement levels, protecting unreleased data. Finally, the Reporting and Dissemination Committee holds a mixed session on March 10 from 1:30 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. ET, with open updates on communications followed by closed planning for the 2025 NAEP Long-Term Trend data release.
The quarterly board meeting, hybrid at the Doubletree by Hilton Hotel in Houston, Texas, spans March 5-6. On March 5, from 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. CST, it includes open welcomes and updates, transitioning to closed sessions on budget, Long-Term Trend results, and the assessment schedule. March 6 features closed discussions on nominations and scheduling from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. CST, followed by open reports, nominee approvals, and talks on workforce issues and the NextGen NAEP project.
Key Topics and Closed Session Rationales
Central topics reflect the board's mandate to enhance NAEP's relevance and efficiency. Discussions on the NAEP Assessment Schedule, recurring in closed sessions, aim to align assessments with educational needs without compromising procurement processes. As noted in the notice, these closures prevent public disclosure that could 'significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program,' citing exemption 9(B) of the Government Sunshine Act.
The focus on the 2025 Long-Term Trend Assessment, which tracks changes in student performance over decades, highlights efforts to provide actionable data. Closed sessions ensure results remain confidential until official release, maintaining fairness in dissemination. Similarly, nominations processes protect personal information, aligning with privacy exemptions.
Perspectives on these meetings vary. Proponents view them as essential for transparent yet secure governance of national assessments, enabling data-driven policy improvements. Critics, however, may argue that extensive closed sessions limit public oversight, potentially reducing accountability in education policy. The inclusion of external speakers like Spellings introduces bipartisan views on linking K-12 education to workforce readiness, broadening the discourse without endorsing specific reforms.
Implications for Education Policy
Short-term implications include potential refinements to NAEP's 2026 administration and 2028 science assessments, influencing how states like Texas use data for student success metrics. Long-term, these meetings could shape NAEP's evolution through initiatives like NextGen NAEP, aimed at making assessments more agile and actionable. This aligns with broader political forces, such as debates over federal involvement in education, where NAEP data often informs legislation like the Every Student Succeeds Act.
Relevant precedents include past board actions, such as updates to achievement levels in response to evolving standards, ensuring assessments reflect current educational realities. Different stakeholders—educators favoring detailed contextual variables versus policymakers seeking streamlined reporting—illustrate ongoing tensions in balancing depth with usability.
In summary, these meetings represent a structured approach to advancing NAEP's mission. Potential next steps involve implementing discussed recommendations, such as finalizing the assessment schedule and releasing Long-Term Trend data. Future challenges may include adapting to budget constraints or integrating new technologies like automated scoring, while debates persist on transparency versus confidentiality in federal advisory processes. These elements will likely influence how NAEP continues to benchmark educational progress nationwide.
