• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Education Home Page

State Assessments

Many states are looking at developing more veritable assessments that require students to demonstrate their knowledge in a portfolio or through extended writing responses. In 1998, for example, Kentucky overhauled its testing program and employed an assessment that combines essays, multiple-choice questions and a writing portfolio. Vermont requires eighth grade students to complete a portfolio assessment in both English and mathematics. According to Education Week, 10 states now require students to incorporate portfolios of written projects or write extended responses to questions in subjects other than English.

Alignment is as important to assessments as it is to standards. For a standards-based accountability system to operate effectively there needs to be alignment between the assessments, standards and curriculum. Creating such a system will ensure that the material students are being tested on (assessments) is the same material they are being taught in the classroom (curriculum) and will allow students to reach the expectations set by the state (standards). For more information on aligning state standards and assessments, refer to CCSSO's report, State Standards and State Assessment Systems: A Guide to Alignment.

According to Education Week, the number of states that administer assessments that are explicitly aligned with the standards in at least one subject increased from 35 in 1998 to 41 in 2000. The National Center for Education Statistics provides a table indicating which states use criterion-referenced tests that are aligned with their standards. When alignment is done properly it creates the foundation of a cohesive education system.

High stake testing, or requiring students to pass tests for grade-to-grade promotion or for high school graduation, has become an extremely contentious issue. As states become embroiled in implementing assessment programs, questions about how to fairly measure and report student achievement has become a national debate. At the federal level, high stakes testing is gaining increasing attention as exemplified by President Bush's comprehensive education package that requires annual testing for all students in grades 3 through 8 and a state developed system of rewards and sanctions. The implementation of high stakes testing programs in several states is causing public outcry and dissention in communities, schools and in the capitols, over the use and validity of testing.

Exit exams are creating concern for parents and educators who question the use of a test to determine whether or not a student will graduate. Twenty-eight states have in place or are considering high school exit exams. In Wisconsin parents mobilized in 1999 to protest the state's high school exit exam because they argued it was unfair for a student's graduation to be based on a single measure. The Wisconsin Legislature responded to these concerns in 2000 by mandating that the exams be used as only one of several factors that determine whether or not a student can graduate.

In Indiana, students who pass the ISTEP-Plus graduation exam graduate, but students who fail the math or English portion have to satisfy rigorous requirements to be eligible for a graduation waiver. The Massachusetts graduation test will be implemented during the 2002-2003 school year. Students must score at the proficient or advanced levels on all 10^th grade tests in order to receive a high school diploma. Students in Massachusetts have joined together in mass protest of the state's assessment program. In May 2000, students hand delivered 7,000 signatures to demand the state repeal the law that makes passing the MCAS a graduation requirement. The students complained that the MCAS is taking away from creativity, wasting valuable class time and forcing teachers to teach to the test. The situation erupted in September 2002 when a group of lawyers filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Springfield, Massachusetts, on behalf of six unidentified students. The suit claims that the state has not adequately prepared students for the assessments, and that the tests discriminate against minority students. The case is still pending.

Texas faced a similar situation in 2000, when two Hispanic advocacy groups sued the Texas Education Agency on grounds that the exit exams were unconstitutional and discriminated against minorities. U.S. District Judge Edward C. Prado sided with the Texas Education Agency stating, "The system is not perfect, but the court cannot say that it is unconstitutional."

According to the Sacramento Bee, parents in California are filing lawsuits and planning demonstrations against the state's high school exit exam. The uprising is in response to the fact that over 50 percent of the state's 10^th graders failed to pass the required exam. They will have several more chances to pass the test before their anticipated graduation in 2004. However, Reed Hastings, president of the State Board of Education, said that California will have a difficult time fending off legal challenges if the pass rate does not rise to at least 90 percent. The State Board of Education could delay implementing the final exam requirements for the students graduating at the end of the 2003-2004 school year.

High stakes testing is accompanied by myriad questions and concerns for policymakers, educators, and community members to consider.

• Is the statewide test a valid and fair measure of student growth?
• What type of assessment would best measure student growth and performance?
• Should this assessment be the sole measure of accreditation, promotion or graduation? If not, what other indicators should be included?
• Does this accountability system include all students, including those with disabilities and language minority students? If so, are there alternative assessments in place and accurate measurements of performance to accommodate students with special needs?

According to Education Week, in 2001, 27 states rate schools primarily on the basis of test scores. Eighteen states currently withhold diplomas from students who fail to pass the statewide graduation exam, while five states-Alaska, Arizona, California, Massachusetts and Washington-have begun to administer exit exams, but are not attaching diplomas to results. In three states-Louisiana, North Carolina and New Mexico-students are required to pass exams both for graduation and promotion. Georgia introduced legislation to do the same. Twenty states reward successful schools with money for high or improving test scores.

As states move closer to implementing graduation exams, several have passed or are considering legislation to delay or modify their original programs. The state board of education in Alabama approved a one-year delay in requiring passing scores on the math and science sections of the state's new high school graduation exam. When sophomores in Alaska took the graduation exam for the first time in spring of 2000, approximately two-thirds failed the math section, more than a quarter of the students failed the reading section and more than half failed the writing portion (results from 8,230 sophomores who took the test). These results have led to fears of large numbers of students not graduating in 2002 and have led to a plethora of proposals to delay the exam by legislators and Governor Tony Knwoles. The Alaska State Board of Education recommended pushing back the state's exit-test requirement from 2002 to 2006. The governor has proposed delaying the graduation exam until 2006. Other plans include allowing students who did not pass the exam to graduate as long as they have a C average or a high attendance rate.

In March 2001, the North Carolina State Board of Education proposed to alter the rigid demands on school performance. The board voted to give the highly criticized writing test less weight in elementary and middle school ratings and not to count the scores of thousands of special education students in the state's formula for assessing school performance. The board also endorsed the state superintendent's plan to give more aid to the state's lowest-performing schools, by reducing class size, extending the school year and giving teachers longer contracts. The plan still must win approval from the General Assembly.

The National Governors Association (NGA) has developed a matrix of state activity toward implementing high-stakes assessments, which can be accessed here. Additional information can also be found on the ECS web site on high-stakes assessments.

Attaching stakes to assessment ushers in a host of legal considerations. Several states have faced litigation over the use of assessments. The significant Florida case, Debra P. v. Turlington, addressed the equity of any statewide assessment. The case concerned African-American students in schools that had not implemented appropriate curricula or provided their students the opportunity to learn the subject matter that Florida's statewide assessment was testing. The assessment was part of the requirements for earning a diploma. The court recommended a phase-in of the test over a four-year period to allow all students equal access to adequate curriculum.

In January 2001, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released a resource guide for policymakers making high stakes decisions about students. The Use of Tests as Part of High-Stakes Decision-Making for Students: A Resource Guide for Educators and Policymakers, attempts to "assemble the best information regarding test measurement standards, legal principles and resources to help educators and policymakers frame strategies and programs that promote learning to high standards in ways consistent with federal non discrimination laws." The report contains information on the legal and test measurement principles that should guide the appropriate use of assessments-with information on how to include students with limited English proficiency or students with disabilities. Some of the issues that have been considered by federal courts in assessing the legality of specific testing practices for making high stakes decisions include:

• The use of an educational test for a purpose for which the test was not designed or validated;
• The use of test scores as the sole criterion for the educational decision,
• The nature and quality of the opportunity provided to students to master required content, including whether classroom instruction includes the material covered by a test administered to determine student achievement;
• The significance of any fairness problems identified, including evidence of differential prediction of a criterion and possible cultural biases in the test or in test items; and
• The educational basis for establishing passing or cut off scores.

According to a study done by PEW and Stateline, states collectively spent approximately $400 million last year to test students. California spent $44 million, followed by Texas at $16 million and, third, Massachusetts at $20 million. The type of test a state uses affects the costs. Off the shelf tests cost between $5 and $15 per student to administer, but states that choose to develop their own test aligned with state standards can spend from $25-$50 per student. In 2000, the Wisconsin legislature authorized the state to spend $4 million over the next two years to design and implement their high school exam. Furthermore, developing and administering a state exam is only one aspect of testing, states also need to fund the collecting and reporting of student and school performance data.

In July 2000, the American Education Research Association developed a position statement on high stakes testing. The following statement presents a set of conditions "essential to sound implementation of high stakes educational testing programs"

Protection Against High Stakes Decisions Based on a Single Test Decisions that affect individual students' life chances or educational opportunities should not be made on the basis of test scores alone. Other relevant information should be taken into account to enhance the overall validity of such decisions. As a minimum assurance of fairness, when tests are used as part of making high stakes decisions for individual students such as promotion to the next grade or high school graduation, students must be afforded multiple opportunities to pass the test.

Adequate Resources and Opportunities to Learn When content standards and associated tests are introduced as a reform to change and thereby improve current practice, opportunities for appropriate materials and retraining consistent with the intended changes should be provided before schools, teachers or students are sanctioned for failing to meet the new standards. In particular, when testing is used for individual student accountability or certification, students must have had a meaningful opportunity to learn the tested content and cognitive processes.

Validation for Each Separate Intended Use Tests valid for one use may be invalid for another. Each separate use of a high-stakes test-for individual certification, for school evaluation, for curricular improvement, for increasing student motivation, or for other uses-requires a separate evaluation of the strengths and limitations of both the testing program and the test itself.

Full Disclosure of Likely Negative Consequences of High Stakes Testing Programs Where credible scientific evidence suggests that a given type of testing program is likely to have negative side effects, test developers and users should make a serous effort to explain these possible effects to policymakers.

Alignment between the Test and the Curriculum Both the content of the test and the cognitive processes engaged in taking the test should adequately represent the curriculum. High stakes should not be limited to that portion of the relevant curriculum that is easiest to measure. Because high stakes testing inevitably creates incentives for inappropriate methods of test preparation, multiple test forms should be used or new test forms should be introduced on a regular basis, to avoid a narrowing of the curriculum toward just the content sampled on a particular form.

Validity of Passing Scores and Achievement Levels When testing programs use specific scores to determine "passing" or to define reporting categories like "proficient", the validity of these specific scores must be established in addition to demonstrating how representative the test content is. The purpose and meaning of passing scores or achievement levels must be stated.

Opportunities for Meaningful Remediation for Students Who Fail High Stakes Tests Students who fail a high stakes test should be provided meaningful opportunities for remediation. Remediation should focus on the knowledge and skills the test is intended to address, not just the test performance.

Appropriate Attention to Language Differences Among Examinees If a student lacks mastery of the language in which a test is given, then that test becomes in part, a test of language proficiency. Unless a primary purpose of a test is to evaluate language proficiency, it should not be used with students who cannot understand the instructions of the language of the test itself.

Appropriate Attention to Students with Disabilities In testing individuals with disabilities, steps should be taken to ensure that the test scores accurately reflect the intended construct rather than any disabilities and their associated characteristics extraneous to the intent of the measurement.

Careful Adherence to Explicit Rules for Determining Which Students Are to be Testing When schools, districts or other administrative units are compared to one another or when changes in scores are tracked over time, there must be explicit policies specifying which students are to be testing and under what circumstances students may be exempted from testing.

Sufficient Reliability for Each Intended Use Reliability refers to the accuracy or precision of test scores. It must be shown that scores reported for individuals or for schools are sufficiently accurate to support each intended interpretation.

Ongoing Evaluation of Intended and Unintended Effects of High Stakes Testing With any high stakes testing program, ongoing evaluation of both intended and unintended consequences is essential. In most cases, the government body that mandates the test should also provide resources for continuing program research and for dissemination of research findings concerning both the positive and the negative effects of the testing.

Assessment Resources

Following is a list of resources on education assessments.

Visitor counts for this page.

Education Home Page