Fed up with the state testing program? Me too

View in your browser.

Welcome

The drama over the state testing program never ends.  Today, the NC State Board of Education will decide how to deal with cut scores and testing results from the 2012-13 school year and beyond.  Here is a novel idea — adopt independent, field-tested, and norm-referenced tests, and get the NC Department of Public Instruction (DPI) out of the testing business once and for all.

Bulletin Board

• Attend. A list of upcoming events sponsored by the John Locke Foundation can be found at the bottom of this newsletter, as well as here.  We look forward to seeing you!
• Donate. If you find this newsletter mildly informative or entertaining, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to the John Locke Foundation.  The John Locke Foundation is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization that does not accept nor seek government funding. It relies solely on the generous support of individuals, corporations, small businesses, and foundations.
• Share. The North Carolina History Project seeks contributors to the North Carolina History Project Encyclopedia. Please contact Dr. Troy Kickler for additional information.
• Discuss. I would like to invite all readers to submit brief announcements, personal insights, anecdotes, concerns, and observations about the state of education in North Carolina.  I will publish selected submissions in future editions of the newsletter. Requests for anonymity will be honored. For additional information or to send a submission, email Terry at [email protected].
• Revisit. We have archived all research newsletters on our website.  Access the archive here.

CommenTerry

Today, the NC State Board of Education (SBE) formally adopts one of the NC Department of Public Instruction (DPI) recommendations for establishing cut scores, that is, the score that students must achieve to earn proficiency on state standardized tests.   

Presumably, higher cut scores mean that it is more difficult to "pass" the test.  But it is not that simple. The relative difficulty of the test questions, length of the test, type(s) of test questions, format of the test, and other factors are important as well.  In other words, cut scores are just one among several factors that determine the "rigor" of a test.  Nevertheless, establishing cut scores is no trivial matter.

Essentially, the SBE has two options.  They can classify the 2012-13 school year as either a "fixed" or a "transitional" year.  The former is straightforward.  Under the fixed model, the SBE would approve cut scores that would be in effect for the next few years.  (See Facts and Stats to see the effect that each option has on proficiency rates.)

The transitional model would delay full implementation of the proposed cut scores until next year.  DPI would then report the 2012-13 scores in one of three ways.  They would 1) blend the recommended cut scores and the anticipated achievement level data; 2) cut scores with standard error of measurement; or 3) adjust the cut scores incorporating the 2011-12 results.  Regardless of the option selected, the transitional approach would downplay this year’s results with the promise of a more rigorous standard in the future.

Should the SBE adopt the fixed or the transitional option?  I recommend that they reject both. 

It’s not that the options themselves are defective. Rather, this entire debate is a symptom of an appalling testing program developed and administered for decades by a broken state agency.  It’s time for someone on the State Board of Education to declare that enough is enough.

Consider, for example, that the state made 122 changes (pdf) to the state testing program between 1995 and 2011.  While state and federal laws mandated some of the changes, many others were the result of tinkering by testing "experts" or state education officials.  Cut scores were reset.  Test questions were revised.  Testing formats were refurbished.  Scores were reconsidered.  Inconvenient results were rejected.  Students who performed poorly were retested.  Calls for reform were rejected repeatedly.  Trust in the testing program was reduced.  DPI spin was refined.  Mediocrity was rewarded. 

And DPI officials are not done rejiggering the state testing program. 

In two years, state education officials would like to move to tests developed by one of the Common Core testing consortia, the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).  While doing so would finally get DPI out of the testing business, there is no evidence that SBAC tests will be an improvement.  Without a doubt, SBAC cannot compete with the solid track records of established testing programs, such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, the California Achievement Test, and the Stanford Achievement Test Series.  Indeed, DPI prefers "shiny and new" to "old and reliable."  And our children, teachers, and parents continue to pay the price.

In my September 5 newsletter, "DPI prepares spin to explain test score drop," I warned readers to prepare for an aggressive public relations campaign surrounding the release of state test scores in November.  Once the board selects a cut score option, DPI will spend the next month "educating" North Carolinians about the virtues of the state testing program.  But they have had 17 years to get their act together.  They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Do not mistake this as a call to eliminate testing completely or as an indictment of the use of standardized tests as an accountability mechanism for the state’s district schools.  Rather, it is a plea to the State Board of Education to — once and for all — tell DPI to move along.

Facts and Stats

Cut Score Options: English Language Arts/Reading and English II proficiency rates

Source: NC State Board of Education, "GCS 1 — Attachment 8"

Education Acronym of the Week

NCSU-TOPS — NC State University-Technical Outreach for Public Schools

Quote of the Week

"It is important to remember that we have raised expectations significantly in the 2012-13 school year. 

Claims in the Past: Grade-level Proficiency Only

Claims in the Future: Grade-level Proficiency and Career-and College-Readiness"

– NC Department of Public Instruction, "Final Academic Achievement Standards and Final Achievement Level Descriptors for Assessments," presentation to the NC State Board of Education, October 3, 2013, p. 3.

Click here for the Education Update archive.