Testing and ESEA Reauthorization: The Moment of Truth

Linda Darling-Hammond, John Jackson, and Marc Tucker are calling for renewed attention to assessment in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act, of which the most recent iteration is No Child Left Behind.

They write:

The next version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) should require the use of tests that do a much better job of measuring higher order thinking skills, including the ability to apply knowledge to unfamiliar problems, and, at the same time, should require accountability testing no more than three times in a student’s career, thereby freeing up funds to purchase the high quality tests the country so urgently needs.

Tucker bemoans the choice made by some states to withdraw from Common Core testing under PARCC and Smarter Balanced:

Take a look at the chart below. They array a variety of tests in common use around the world on a single cost scale. The costs-as is so often the case-are strongly associated with the quality of the tests. The standard multiple-choice, computer scored tests place on the bottom in quality and cost. The College Board Advanced Placement Tests and the University of Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education exams, widely regarded as setting a benchmark for lower division high school quality, are far above the standard set by our basic skills tests. Now take a look at the estimated costs of the tests being developed by the two state testing consortia. You will see that their costs hover in the vicinity of those charged for the far inferior standard basic skills tests, and come in far below those of tests widely regarded as the best in the world. Virtually all observers believe that the tests the consortia are working on will be far better than the tests they are designed to replace. It is patently absurd that some states are pulling out of their testing consortium on the grounds that these tests will cost too much.

Sample Assessments Cost per test per student per subject

• U.S. States High Stakes Tests median $14
• Smarter Balanced $14
• PARCC $15
• ACT Quality Core $23
• Cambridge IGCSE $60
• College Board AP $89
• International Baccalaureate $104

In addition to calling for commitment to higher-quality assessments, the educators recommend following the practice of other countries around the world—implementing rigorous (and possibly more expensive) testing 2 or 3 times through a student’s school career. But would this lack of annual accountability put our students who are least well served by our nation’s schools at risk? On the contrary, Mark Tucker explains that the students hurt the most by proposed ESEA reauthorization language are those in the poorest districts and at the most underperforming schools:

John Jackson, one of this country’s most prominent civil rights leaders in the arena of education, signed the commentary column because he, like Linda Darling-Hammond and me, see this not just as a crucial education issue, but also as a civil rights issue. The proposals from the two parties for the reauthorization of NCLB essentially exempt all but the worst performing schools from the draconian provisions of the Act. The schools to which the strongest sanctions would apply would be those that enroll the highest proportions of low-income and minority students. If the tests being used essentially emphasize the lowest level skills, that means that American teachers would have very strong incentives to set the lowest performance targets for the students from the lowest-income, most minority families. That would amount to an especially cruel policy that would effectively lock in the growing disparities in the achievement gap for many years to come.

For more information, please visit:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2013/10/testing_and_esea_reauthorization_the_moment_of_truth.html