Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home


NCLB Outrages

Study: Testing firms 'buckling' under NCLB's weight

by Staff

To motivate juniors on last year's assessment exams, central Illinois' Springfield High School offered coveted lockers, parking spaces near the door, and free prom tickets as incentives for good scores. But the incentives went unclaimed until this March, when Illinois finally published its 2006 test scores--more than four months after they were due. Critics pounced on Harcourt Assessment Inc., which lost most of its $44.5 million state contract over delays that made Illinois the last state in the nation to release scores used to judge schools under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

But experts say the problems are more widespread and are likely to get worse. A handful of companies create, print, and score most of the tests in the U.S.--and they're struggling with a workload that has exploded since President Bush signed the education reform package in 2002.

"The testing industry in the U.S. is buckling under the weight of NCLB demands," said Thomas Toch, co-director of Education Sector, a Washington-based think tank.

When Education Sector surveyed 23 states in 2006, it found 35 percent of testing offices in those states had experienced "significant" errors with scoring, and 20 percent didn't get results "in a timely fashion."

Illinois saw more problems in March, when students took achievement tests that contained as many as 13 errors, officials said. But Illinois isn't the only state that has experienced difficulties:

â€Â¢Oregon's Education Department complained that a computerized test was plagued by system problems. Test company Vantage Learning later terminated its contract with the state, claiming it was owed money, and the state sued the company for breach of contract. Now, thousands of students who haven't completed online exams will take them in May the old-fashioned way, using paper and pencil. â€Â¢Connecticut last year fined Harcourt $80,000 after a processing error caused wrong scores for 355 students in 2005. While that's a fraction of the state's 41,000 kids who took the test, state officials had to notify 51, or nearly a third, of all districts that some of their students got the wrong scores. The problem came a year after the state canceled its contract with another firm, CTB/McGraw-Hill, after scoring problems caused a five-month delay in reporting scores. â€Â¢The Texas Education Agency passed 4,160 10th-graders who initially failed the math section of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills in 2003 after officials discovered a test question had more than one correct answer.

â€Â¢Pearson Educational Measurement apologized last year after it reported more than 900,000 Michigan results weeks late. In 2003, previous vendor Measurement Inc. delivered 3,400 MEAP scores months late and nearly 1,000 results went missing. The number of students tested has risen sharply since NCLB took effect. Illinois, for example, used to test only third, fifth, and eight graders but now tests students in third through eighth grades.

To meet NCLB requirements, states administered 45 million reading and math exams last spring. At the end of the 2007-08 school year, they will give about 56 million tests because they must add a science exam at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

What's more, each state has its own test, and many want them customized, said Michael Hansen, chief executive officer of Harcourt Assessment, which no longer administers Illinois' tests but still is involved in developing and grading them.

"Not only [have] states wanted different content in terms of the tests, but they also have very many different requirements as to logistics, delivery, look and feel, color, how the questions are organized, horizontal, vertical ... you name it, it was on the table," Hansen said.

On top of that, experts say, are rigid, NCLB-driven deadlines.

"That means March and April we are completely ... at peak capacity, and so is every one of our competitors," Hansen said. "But also then when the test results come in, [schools] need the test results back as soon as possible ... so the turnaround from the time that the test is taken, to [when] we need to report the results is extremely tight--and it's getting tighter and tighter."

Others say the problems are exacerbated by little competition or regulation.

The NCLB testing industry is dominated by four companies: Harcourt of San Antonio, Texas; CTB/McGraw-Hill, based in Monterey, Calif.; Pearson Educational Measurement of Iowa City, Iowa, and Riverside Publishing of Itasca, Ill.

"It's not entirely a monopoly, but it is an oligopoly, with very little regulation," said Walter Haney, professor at the Center for the Study of Testing Evaluation and Educational Policy at Boston College.

Both state education departments and testing companies are "overtaxed and bursting at the seams," said Becky Watts, former chief of staff at the Illinois State Board of Education.

From 2002 to 2008, states will spend between $1.9 billion and $5.3 billion to develop, score, and report NCLB-required tests, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. However, states spend less than a quarter of 1 percent of school revenue--or $10 to $30 a student--on testing programs, even though federal, state, and local spending per pupil adds up to more than $8,000 a year, Toch said, adding: "That's not enough to produce high-quality tests in the tight timelines that NCLB requires. It's ludicrous."

The U.S. Department of Education must be more active, Toch said; instead, "Secretary [Margaret] Spellings has largely washed her hands of this problem, said it's a state problem, which is a peculiar ... response because it's the federal government that has required the states to take these actions."

— Staff
eSchool News
2007-05-01
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStoryts.cfm?ArticleID=7048


INDEX OF NCLB OUTRAGES


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.