SPECIAL REPORT: States Pay $400 Million For Tests In 2001
By Tiffany Danitz, Staff Writer
Stateline.org
Over the last decade, states have been trying to raise student achievement by setting standards of learning for each grade. States have been using tests in benchmark grades such as 3,5 and 9 to measure whether or not the kids are learning.
The sweeping federal education bill that passed on Dec. 18th imposes new requirements on states and school districts to improve student achievement, while also authorizing a substantial increase in federal aid and offering greater flexibility in how that money is spent. In addition, it mandates statewide testing in reading and mathematics each year in grades 3-8.
Some states are already ahead of the game. Since 1992, Tennessee has been testing grades 3-8, as well as high school. "We are geared up. We feel we have a premier evaluation system," said Dr. Ben Brown, Tennessee’s director of testing.
Delaware also has a highly respected testing program for grades 3-6,8,10 and 11. On the surface, the $4 million price tag doesn’t seem too expensive, but Delaware has the second smallest student population – only 114,000 statewide.
The new education law won’t effect Florida, Tennessee and Delaware as severely as Wisconsin, according to H. Gary Cook, Director of Wisconsin’s accountability office. "We don’t test as much and we don’t customize all our tests," he said. Customizing a test, such as the Stanford 9, an off-the-shelf-test, requires states to hire test writers and content experts.
COSTLY CHOICES:
Most states use a combination of off-the-shelf tests and exams designed by the state specifically to measure standards. Off-the-shelf-tests cost between $5 and $15 per student to administer, but states building new, aligned exams can spend from $25 to $50 per student, according to David Griffith, director of government affairs at the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE).
Generally, states limit the grades tested because of cost and time. Many in the education community worry that the expense will force states to resort to less rigorous tests and inadequate resources to help struggling students catch up.
"There is no bonus for coming out with the best test system, just punishment for not having one," said Griffith. "Too often, when states are given a mandate they are going to do the minimum of what is required especially when there is a huge price tag on it. So one of our (NASBE) concerns is that everyone ends up using the Stanford-9. "
Montana is one such state. The legislature hasn’t required the state to develop a test aligned with the standards and the students are being tested with an off-the-shelf test, according to Madalyn Quinlan, Chief of Staff to the Superintendent of Schools.
Allan Olson, testing expert and executive director of Northwest Evaluation Association in Oregon, said he is most concerned with how states will implement the new testing mandate. "The federal model will put in place a very old testing system. Most testing systems are not accurate enough to be sure where any student is at in grades 3-8. The methods currently in use are not helpful to the very people who need to guide improvement in learning."
MAKING TESTS WORK:
Early on, Maryland policy makers realized that "testing is here to stay," according to Martin Kehe, assessment operational manager for Maryland’s Education Department. The state did its best to figure out "what kind of testing will support the best kind of instruction," he said.
This was a significant move, because many educators worry that testing is taking up too much time and teachers are "teaching to the test."
"Our communities strongly oppose a singular statewide test because it leads to teaching to the test," said Betty Vandevander, a spokesperson for Nebraska’s Education Department. The state hired a test developer last year to create an exam from the ground up that works within the current curriculum being taught in the local schools, according to Vandevander.
"Testing is here to stay, accept it. What we need to figure out is how do we use the data to help and the test to instruct," said Bob Barr, senior analyst with the Center for School Improvement at Boise State University in Idaho.
The second thing a test must do is pinpoint where students need to improve. Some schools give the tests in April and the results are reported in October when the student has already moved on to the next grade.
"What do you do with the data?" asked Bart Beal, a Plainfield Indiana School Board member. "There are a group of kids that need to be reached that aren't being reached," he added.
Barr points out that the practice of not promoting children to the next grade if they fail the test can cause serious problems in the future – such as escalating drop out rates. "We can’t just test them and forget them. We have to use the test to identify kids that need urgent support and then provide it," Barr said.
HIDDEN COSTS:
Developing an exam, keeping it current, administering it and scoring it are only part of the cost. Collecting and storing the testing data holds still greater expense.
When Texas set up its exam system in the late 1980s it spent $11 million just on the computer equipment needed to track and disaggregate, or break down, the data, according to NCSL’s Shreve. He says Texas continues to spend up to $4 million annually to maintain this data which is a separate cost from developing and administering the test.
States will also be required to break down student data into specific categories that will most likely include ethnicity, economic status and gender. Thirty states do not report this data yet, according to the U.S. Department of Education.
"The big issue in this accountability plan of the President’s is not only testing students every year, but being able to disaggregate the data and it wouldn’t appear to me that $100 million would come close to covering the cost the states would incur to comply," Shreve said. In order to maintain the hardware and software associated with the testing, Shreve estimates will cost each state in excess of $2 million a year.
GOING TOO FAST?:
In 1994, Congress rewrote the rules for states applying for Title 1 money - the largest portion of federal dollars spent on schools. States were given five years to set up learning standards and create tests to measure whether students are meeting them. Students have to be tested at least once between grades 3-5, 6-9 and 10-12.
Almost two years after the deadline, only 17 states have met the Title 1 requirements and 92 percent of the nation’s school districts get Title 1 grants.
"What is striking is that, six or seven years into this process (Title 1 reforms) between the feds and the state education agencies, we have so few states complying. It is difficult negotiating with 50 different states with 50 different sets of standards – it is a nightmare. And if we have taken that long to comply with Title 1 testing requirements maybe implementing the new education law will take not one to three years, but seven years – it is an enormous undertaking," Shreve said.
Since the standards movement began, Iowa has not set standards due to a strong belief in local decision making. Iowa requires local school districts to test, but the districts pay for it themselves and nearly 100 percent of them use the Iowa Basic Skills test instead of a homemade test aligned to local standards, according to Ron Parker, a spokesman for Iowa’s Education Department.
Parker says the new federal law will "generate a great deal of discussion in the legislature."
"This thing is moving so quickly and there is no appreciation for how sweeping a change this really is and what it will mean for states," NASBE’s Griffith said. He advocates more discussion on the "purpose" of the federal government in requiring testing and how it can be coordinated with curriculum and standards.
Education Secretary Paige likened the testing plan to an annual checkup at the family doctor’s office. "It is not meant to be punitive, it is meant to be helpful." Because, Paige says, "once you make (problems with student achievement) visible everyone is compelled to do something about it."
