|
|
|
 |
AEP Online |
Challenges to NCLB Mandates--Education Sector ReportAs legislators, the Aspen Institute, and the U.S. Department of Education are making recommendations on how to improve and change NCLB during the 2007 reauthorization, the issue of testing has taken center stage. Virtually all the groups are in agreement that changes in the measurement of individual student progress will be made. The new "growth model" approach will measure how much progress a student makes during the year instead of year to year. Most believe this more accurately represents what the student has mastered. What has yet to be discussed is how the states can manage the pressures of mandated testing. Most education experts believe that science testing will be added to reading and math, yet it is unclear where the funds will come from and if the current system can accommodate yet another subject. The Education Sector analysis of the subject, titled Margins of Error: The Education Testing Industry in the No Child Left Behind Era, is instructive. The report's author, Thomas Leach, reveals the tenuous relationship between standards, funding, and capacity. He also lends credibility to the argument that the NCLB reauthorization should include work on both the structure and funding of the state testing systems. To begin with, states administered approximately 11.4 million new tests in the 2005-2006 school year. As states begin adding the new science tests, that number will double. Eduventures, an information services company for the education market, estimates the testing industry value is now at approximately $2.3 billion for all testing including college admission and prep. NCLB testing is worth approximately $577 million on it's own, and that will increase with any new mandates. Ninety percent of the testing is being done by five major publishers, and new companies are also getting in on the action. Today, testing is big business--though not necessarily a profitable one. The demand for testing has put incredible pressure on the industry to produce quality and quantity tests. Previously, tests were only renewed every five to eight years. Now states may own the copyrights to the tests and release them after administration. So new tests and questions must be developed each year, and in order to stay competitive, publishers are "attempting to achieve efficiencies of scale--get as many contracts as possible," according to the report. Publishers are consequently seeing their profit margins erode. Former ETS Vice President Anthony Carnevale says his company "lost $18 million on its first NCLB testing deal, a three year $175 million contract with California." According to Harcourt President Jeff Galt, "Harcourt is spending $50 million over 3 years on printers, scanners, software and other test processing infrastructure--most of this equipment remains idle during most of the year." This represents the tip of the iceberg as publishers and state testing divisions compete for the small numbers of psychometricians in the workforce. There are only about 12 new graduates in the field each year and they are moving to where the best offers are. This in turn has led to a shortage of test questions. States are now adding daily penalty clauses to contracts for scoring and return times, and what most describe as the lack of appropriate federal funding is also contributing to the challenge. Currently, states are only spending less than one quarter of one percent of public school revenues on their statewide testing programs, according to Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby. That amounts to about $30 to $90 per year on all testing, prep, and any testing-related services. In FY 06 the federal contribution to state testing was $412 million, and it will be at least that for FY 07. The Ed Sector and other experts believe that number should be more than doubled for an annual federal contribution of $860 million. Other recommendations from the report include a new Federal responsibility to increase the number of psychometricians and other testing experts, fund new research and development on testing, a bi-partisan presidential commission on testing, a national testing oversight agency, interstate collaboration, and eventually a single national testing system. Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 856-241-7772. |
Find out more on AEP's Government Relations pages |
|
©
2008 The Association of Educational
Publishers
|
||
