ESEA's New Testing Requirements: Will States Make the Grade?

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, has been called the most far-reaching federal education bill in nearly four decades. The law addresses many areas, from school choice to low-performing schools to increased accountability. Testing, however, is the area that is drawing much scrutiny from states — and many questions.

The law requires states to administer tests in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 by the 2005-2006 school year. States also must test students at least once in grades 10-12 in reading and mathematics. Science tests are phased in at least once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 by 2007-2008.

States must also make sure tests are aligned with the state standards. When reporting test scores, the results must explain how well students are meeting standards (for example, below proficiency, proficient, advanced). What's more, states must disaggregate test scores in several categories including gender, race, ethnicity, and migrant status.

The results of mathematics and reading assessments will be the primary indicators of whether schools and districts have made "adequate yearly progress." If a school fails to make adequate progress for two consecutive years, the district must require the school to develop an improvement plan and provide students with the opportunity to attend other schools in the district. Corrective actions continue to mount if a school fails to make adequate progress for a third year and beyond.

While the law spells out in broad terms what's required, existing testing programs vary widely from state to state. They focus on different grades, subjects, levels of difficulty, and in some cases, even students. Given the wide variation, many observers predict states face a huge task ahead. "The challenge is that 50 states have gone in 50 different directions," says Stanley Rabinowitz, the director of assessments and standards development services for WestEd, a Regional Educational Educational Laboratory that is based in San Francisco. "To reconcile state policies with federal policies will take some work in all states."

What do states think about the new requirements? Reaction is mixed. States like Texas, which already have a comprehensive assessment system in place, applaud the changes. "It feels really good to work in education in Texas," says Arturo Almendarez, deputy commissioner for programs and instruction at the Texas Education Agency and a SEDL board member. "When you talk to other states that have no assessment system at all, they have a lot of work to do, but I'm confident educators across the country will answer the call."

Still other states with further to go are raising lots of questions about funding and whether they will have enough time to meet the deadline. States that fail to comply risk losing federal dollars. (See chart below to see how much money SEDL states will receive.)

According to the Education Commission of the States (ECS), 15 states, including Louisiana and Texas plus the District of Columbia, meet the requirements for annual assessments in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8. (See the table on page 12 for current state testing policies in SEDL's region.)

It is unclear, however, how many of these states meet the requirement to align assessments with state standards. Other states are counting on a federal rule-making committee charged with determining the specifics of the law to offer some flexibility.

A Combination of Tests

To help fill in the gaps, many states that don't yet meet the federal standards, including Arkansas, Louisiana, and New Mexico, are urging the federal government to allow a combination of local and state assessments, or norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests.

New Mexico, for example, tests students in grades 3-9 but those tests are norm-referenced. The state department will begin transitioning to criterion-referenced, (also known as standards-based) tests. Jack McCoy, the director of the agency's instructional support services division, is confident he can meet the U.S. Department of Education's deadline as long as New Mexico receives sufficient resources. Under the new law, the state will receive $4.4 million in federal funding.

"We'll use those funds to develop criterion-referenced tests. We're optimistic, or foolish, enough to believe that by next spring we will have criterion-referenced tests up and running in at least three grades in mathematics and reading."

State leaders are quick to note that the No Child Left Behind Act pledges that if Congress fails to appropriate funds for test development, accountability provisions required by the law would not apply. Still, there is an expectation that states will continue to develop new tests.

Funding Authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act
The No Child Left Behind Act authorizes up to $490 million a year in federal aid to help states develop and administer mandated tests. If Congress does not appropriate enough money in any given year, states may postpone the 2005-2006 deadline for giving the tests. How much does your state receive for assessments under No Child Left Behind?
	STATE	$ MILLIONS
	Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas	4.9 6.7 4.4 5.7 20.2
Source: U.S. Department of Education, 2002

Arkansas is also considering replacing some of its norm-referenced tests with criterion tests, but Ray Simon, the director of the Arkansas Department of Education, predicts "those tests will take awhile to develop."

Louisiana also favors a combination of tests, but like other states will have to show the federal government that the tests measure whether students are achieving state standards. "We may have some adjustments to make on our norm-referenced tests," says Scott Norton, director of standards and assessments for the Louisiana Department of Education. "We'll need an objective third-party study to show our norm-referenced tests are aligned to the standards."

States that want to use norm-referenced tests to fill in the gaps face another challenge. Norm-referenced tests, like the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, don't measure whether a student is making progress against standards, but instead compare students with other students taking the test.

Norton is convinced it can be done: "A state can do a standard-setting process and yield cut scores. We can use those cut scores to determine whether a student is proficient."

Another issue is cost. The cost of administering, scoring, and reporting the results of criterion-referenced tests often exceeds the cost for norm-referenced tests. McCoy predicts states and districts will have to absorb those costs, which, for a school district in New Mexico, could jump an additional 50-100%.

Organizations such as the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the National Governors Association have called on the administration to allow states to use a combination of tests. Time and money factor in heavily.

"The big complaint is: Will three years be adequate to get our assessments up and running?" says Wayne Martin, director of the State Education Assessment Center at the Council of Chief State School Officers. "Remember, you want everything aligned — instruction, content standards, assessments."

Not everyone agrees with using a combination of tests. The National Education Association (NEA) is opposed to using norm- referenced tests to comply with No Child Left Behind. "The test of this bill will be how well the states implement these tests," says Kim Anderson, who lobbies for the NEA. "If states focus on diagnostic tests, that's good. We support that. But if states buy off-the-shelf tests, it will be a failure."

Draft regulations released in late February by the U.S. Department of Education suggest that states will be able to use a mix of tests, as well as customized off-the-shelf tests "if states also add questions to address their own content standards." The guidelines say that states would have to demonstrate that the assessment system "has a rational and coherent design."

Still, more details are needed, and the draft regulations were a starting point for the rule-making committee. The committee, made up of educators, parents, students, and business leaders, is charged with developing federal regulations on testing and other issues tied to the act. The committee has developed draft regulations and is now holding regional hearings to gather public input.

"The thing that worries me is that states are going to wait for clarity while the clock is ticking away," says Kathy Christie, vice president of the ECS clearinghouse. "Most states should plow ahead and fine-tune as more information comes out."

States will likely have to wait until late June to get the final word from the U.S. Department of Education — that's when the agency is expected to release final regulations.

Interview with Stanley Rabinowitz, Director of Assessments and Standards Development Services at WestEd

Dr. Rabinowitz has written a number of published papers on issues related to the use of integrated standards and assessment systems in high-stakes state programs and worker-training initiatives. He is the author or co-author of many WestEd resources, including Balancing Local Assessment with Statewide Testing: Building a Program that Meets Student Needs; Building a Workable Accountability System: Key Decision Points for Policymakers and Educators; and Do High Stakes Tests Drive Up Student Dropout Rates? What do the new testing policies in the ESEA mean in general for states? The main value of the law is that it sets a standard for all states to meet that represents a consensus of what student performance should look like and what school performance should look like. The challenge is that 50 states have gone in 50 directions to meet those goals, and reconciling state policies with federal policies will take some work in all states. What message is the Bush administration sending to states through this legislation? It's time for reform to result in improved student performance. If schools can't make that happen than parents deserve other options. I think that's the central message of the bill. Connected to that is that the drafters of the bill think they know how to make this happen. For the first time, the federal government is going to be explicit about what happens if you don't make the progress you are expected to make. The level of detail is more explicit than any other federal legislation. What are you hearing from states? You're not hearing any criticism about the intent and the need for the act, and that's very different from five years ago. The only concern you are hearing from states is, "How are we going to get this done in the time and with the resources that are available?" Another concern is, ‘If the assessment system developed in my state has the same goal in mind, can we implement it as long as we stick to the general guidelines?' Under a strict interpretation of the act, states will have to undo everything they have just built up — that's a real problem. For example, let's say the intent of Louisiana's system is the same as the federal act — they both have the same goals, but they are doing it somewhat differently. Is the act a big-enough umbrella for these programs, or will states have to undo themselves to fit under the act? What else has struck you as the conversation about testing unfolds? I'd like to stress the amazing amount of consensus we're seeing across all levels — state superintendents, local superintendents. Now, there are people who don't think this is the right way to go, but the number of voices is much fewer that we have heard. There's a strong sense that enough is enough. It's time to move forward with strong models of accountability, and this bill helps do that.

Impact on Schools and Districts

While states are searching for answers about what's permissible and what's not under No Child Left Behind, some who frequently work with educators say the issues raised by state leaders about testing have yet to reach schools and districts.

"It's not on their radar screen," says Ed Tobia, a program associate with the Southwest Education Development Laboratory (SEDL) in Austin who works with low-performing schools in several states. "They have state accountability systems and testing programs they are responding to. They're more concerned about dealing with their kids and dealing with issues at a local level."

When the new changes in testing do hit districts, groups like the National Association for Secondary School Principals (NASSP) want to make sure that teachers and principals are prepared. "They will have to know how to read [testing] data correctly and make sure the data are in compliance with the law," says Stephen DeWitt, associate director of government relations for NASSP. "Often principals are last in line to get funding for this kind of professional development."

Although the NASSP is "generally supportive" of the bill, DeWitt says principals fear tests will be used for the wrong reasons. Although the act doesn't judge school quality on a single test score, there's concern states will move in that direction. DeWitt adds, "Principals' other concern is how they will be judged and measured by it personally."

While there are concerns, SEDL board member Imelda Guerra, principal of Calallen East Elementary School in Corpus Christi, Texas, thinks the changes at the federal level are good. "We're being held accountable as schools. I think we are going to do fine."

Guerra also applauds the law's emphasis on disaggregating testing data. Under the measure, schools and districts will be required to break down and report testing data in several categories. "You can't let that same group of students not learn year after year."

But not all district and state databases are equipped to tackle the task at hand. ECS's Christie predicts it's "going to be a large problem for a number of states that just don't have their systems setup." What's more, some teachers and principals will need help learning how to interpret the testing data. "Many school personnel don't have a good grasp of what testing data represents," says SEDL program associate D'Ette Cowan. "What do the different scores tell us?" She says the challenge for educators is how to use the data to inform classroom instructional practices.

Defining Proficiency

Another challenge facing both states and districts is how they define "proficiency." Under the law, test results must explain how well students are meeting standards (for example, below proficiency, proficient, advanced). How states define proficiency can vary widely from state to state. Some states and districts may choose to set the bar high. These states may have a tough time bringing all students to proficiency, as the law requires, by 2014. Some fear this will lead states to adopt less rigorous standards.

"It's a big question, a legitimate one," says ECS's Christie. "Yet, this is about higher expectations for all kids, not just the ones who are easy to educate."

Impact on English-Language Learners

Another aspect of the new testing guidelines has drawn the attention  of states with large numbers of English-Language Learners. The law  says any child who has been in the United States for three years  has to be tested in reading in English.

"That's a different way for us to do business in New Mexico," says McCoy. "A large population of our students (Native American  and Hispanic) come to school with a home language other than English." While McCoy agrees schools must work on English literacy skills  with all students, New Mexico's bilingual programs transition students  to English in five years.

New Mexico and other states may get some breathing room. Under  the law, implementation may be delayed for one year if the state  demonstrates exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances.

The law also requires states to demonstrate that school districts,  beginning in the 2002-2003 school year, will provide annual assessment  of English proficiency. These tests, targeted at English-Language  Learners, measure students' oral language, reading, and writing  skills in English.

What's Next

As the rule-making process unfolds, states will be watching closely  — eager for answers to questions about what combination of  tests meets the requirements, how to define proficiency, how to  help transition English-Language Learners, and other issues. Many  hope that the new federal requirements will complement — rather  than unravel — their accountability systems. And some predict  the new law will only help with current efforts to improve student  achievement.

"The federal government is putting a high priority on accountability  for student achievement," says Ray Simon, director of the Arkansas  Department of Education. "This is the thrust of our current  reform efforts. By having the federal government adopt the same  position, it strengthens our work with local schools and citizens.  We look on it as a new partnership with the federal government and  one that we welcome."

Lesley Dahlkemper, a former education reporter, is a senior  project director with KSA-Plus Communications in Arlington, Virginia.  She manages the firm's Denver office.

Next Article: Can ESEA Improve Teacher Quality?