Complete report
The past few years in state assessment have been rough. The
decade began with the Obama administration’s Race to the Top Assessment (RTT-A)
grant, which funded states to develop higher-quality and more rigorous
assessments aligned to the newly adopted Common Core Standards in math and
reading. 1 Two multistate consortia focused on math and reading assessment
kicked off their work around 2010: the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness
for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
(SBAC). 2 45 states initially signed on. The consortia tests achieved many of
their aims. Multiple studies have found that the tests align well to college-
and career-ready standards, giving educators, families, and policymakers a more
honest measure of student performance and progress. 3 The consortia also pushed
the field forward on test administration and test development processes,
including technological innovations that were big advancements from most tests
that came before. 4 And comparable student test results across states were available
to millions of families for the first time.
Despite these achievements, by the time new tests debuted in
2015 they already faced intense backlash from political actors and later the
public. 5 Today 12 states remain in the Smarter Balanced consortia and PARCC
has essentially disbanded, although several states still administer the PARCC test
or use PARCC items in their new tests. 6 There were various factors behind the
backlash, most of them unrelated to the quality or specific features of states’
new tests. Some teachers and families pushed back on time spent testing and the
perceived high stakes tied to tests, especially in states intending to use test
scores as a component in teacher evaluations. 7
Computer-based tests spurred investments in school
technology, but they also introduced new administrative hurdles and costs.
Although annual state tests had been federally required since 2001, and the
consortia and standards were led by states, the new tests became a focal point
of narratives about federal overreach and over-testing. Current wisdom holds
that testing has become politically toxic.
There are real risks that some states are rolling back
advancements in test quality, accessibility, and rigor in the name of reducing test
time and cost, or answering political pressures. But that is not the whole
story of state assessment today. In fact, there are several areas with evidence
of improvement, innovation, or interesting new developments, several of which
go beyond states’ federally mandated role in testing. States are continuing to
rethink their roles in assessment and their assessment systems in ways that may
benefit teaching, learning, transparency, and equity
One encouraging high-level trend in state assessments is an
increasing emphasis on instructional relevance and resources that can help
bring standards to life in the classroom, often as a complement to summative
tests. Whereas once the state role in assessment was almost entirely limited to
developing and administering traditional summative tests, states are thinking
about ways to build more comprehensive assessment systems that include
different kinds of tests and align with parallel efforts to improve
instruction, professional development, standards, and curriculum. New ideas in
assessment may pick up steam with the help of $379 million in competitive federal
grants for assessment innovation, announced in late January 2019. 8 The priorities
for this program include interim assessments; science, technology, engineering and
math (STEM) assessments; and tests that incorporate new kinds of technical
designs or project-based learning.
This brief highlights developing trends and opportunities
for state systems of assessment, especially in areas beyond federally mandated
reading and math assessments. Which states are pursuing these ideas, and what
might be holding others back? What are the risks and rewards of investment and
innovation in new test designs or assessments? Current wisdom holds that
testing has become politically toxic. There are real risks that some states are
rolling back advancements in test quality, accessibility, and rigor in the name
of reducing test time and cost, or answering political pressures.
No comments:
Post a Comment