The Trouble With Testing
Stateline.org’s Pauline Vu looks at the rise of standardized testing, weaving in some interesting numbers as well as raising a wide range of issues, from cost to effectiveness to the variations in rigor among states to the shortage of psychometricians.
The year before NCLB went into effect, Vu reports, states spent $423 million on standardized tests. During the 2007- 08 school year, that amount will increase to almost $1.1 billion. And the windfall largely goes to five (soon to be four) testing companies.
And yet, federal funds have been lacking to help pay the tab for administering now 45 million tests a year (going up to 56 million once NCLB’s science assessment is added). Hence a reliance in many states on cheaper-to-score multiple-choice assessments.
“States are not putting any more resources into the testing infrastructure, and as a result, we are getting testing on the cheap, and that is working against No Child Left Behind’s efforts to produce high-quality assessments that promote higher standards,” Education Sector Co-director Thomas Toch tells Vu. ”If we’re going to make tests the driver of quality in public education, then we need to invest to ensure that we get tests that are up to that task.”
But is the answer more money for better tests (and more profits for testing companies)? The operative word in Toch’s quote is if. As in, how about challenging the assumption that standardized tests are “the driver of quality in public education”?
So barring an infusion of cash, the consequence of NCLB’s testing mania will be an ongoing quest for cheaper and cheaper tests. That could mean looking to national standards for economies of scale, but it would be a shame if the national standards debate boiled down to how cheaply a test can be made and scored.
As Wisconsin’s director of testing tells Vu, “People who don’t have their heads stuck in the instruction don’t realize it’s not cheap to do this really well. And right now, I don’t know many legislatures that are very open to spending money or raising taxes to develop these kinds of instruments.”
February 9, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I oppose the current fixation with testing. However, I believe the most effective way to lessen testing is to separate out the cost of testing. I too don’t feel that legislatures in these times of economic belt tightening do not want to be associated with the true cost of testing. I have been pushing for NEA to take a position that teachers teach and someone else does the standardized testing. Of course once testing is a separate budget item NEA should be involved in helping to define appropriate testing.
April 24, 2008 at 6:09 pm
[...] the blogosphere I have recently come across many criticisms of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and some of its flow on consequences for preschool: Because NCLB focuses on [...]