# data[].attributes.body
This article calculates and estimates roughly how much standardized-testing regimens cost per state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Standardized-testing regimens cost states some $1.7 billion a year overall, or a quarter of 1 percent of total K-12 spending in the United States, according to a new report on assessment finances.

The report released Nov. 29 by the Washington-based Brown Center on Education Policy, at the Brookings Institution, calculates that the test spending by 44 states and the District of Columbia amounted to $65 per student on average in grades 3-9 based on the most recent test-cost data the researchers could gather. (The Brown Center report was not able to gather that data from Connecticut, Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming.)

It also says that the District of Columbia spends the most on its assessments per student-$114-of the 45 jurisdictions Brookings measured, followed by Hawaii, Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, and Massachusetts. New York, where test scoring is a local responsibility, spent the least-$7 per student-followed by Kansas, North Carolina, Oregon, and Utah.

Despite the relatively small amount states spend on tests overall, compared with total education spending nationally, the report, written by Brown Center fellow Matthew M. Chingos, warns that the testing costs take on growing importance during difficult budget periods for states.

While the two consortia developing tests for the Common Core State Standards in English/language arts and mathematics (adopted by 46 and 45 states, respectively) may help reduce overall costs for states, the report says, "it is not yet clear whether larger consortia ... are a better choice than smaller ones formed more organically" from a cost standpoint.

Risking 'Backlash'

The report, titled "State Spending on K-12 Assessments," also notes that while only 9 percent of Americans in a poll said they disapprove of federal mandates for state tests like the math, reading, and science tests required by No Child Left Behind Act, "there is the risk of multimillion-dollar assessment contracts contributing to a political backlash against testing among parents and taxpayers who oppose the use of standardized testing for accountability purposes or object to public dollars flowing to for-profit companies (as most of the testing contractors are)."

If the money for standardized assessments was instead put toward teacher raises, the report estimates that each teacher in the country would receive, on average, a raise of $550, or 1 percent, based on data about teacher salaries and other factors from the 2012 Digest of Education Statistics.

The report also includes information on the major contractors that provide services for the states' primary assessment contracts, although they don't represent all state spending on tests.

It found that six vendors overall accounted for the bulk of the states' $669 million of annual spending for tests required under the No Child Left Behind Act in grades 3-8 and once in high school. That spending amounted to $27 per student on average. Of all the contractors, the report says that New York City-based Pearson Education received the most money (39 percent), followed by McGraw-Hill Education, also in New York (14 percent), and the Maple Grove, Minn.-based Data Recognition Corp. (13 percent).

Of the roughly $1 billion in remaining testing costs, the Brown Center calculates that amount would consist of the data it did not receive from the five states, as well as testing costs that are not contracted out and costs not included in primary assessment contracts, such as state exams not mandated by the NCLB law.

Common-Core Wrinkle

In an interview, Mr. Chingos said that comparing current state assessment costs against the projected costs of administering and scoring the common tests now being developed would not be meaningful, given the different numbers of students involved and the different way the work is being parceled out.

A few factors could drive down the cost-per-student of the standards-aligned tests. In addition to the larger number of students the consortia will be dealing with when the common-core standards are fully implemented, the market for providing services to the consortia will remain relatively competitive, Mr. Chingos said, since each group will likely use more than one contractor. Examples set by Kansas and North Carolina, which use public universities for their primary assessment contracts, could also encourage more nonprofits to enter the market, in Mr. Chingos' view.

"It stands to reason that, all else equal, these consortia should be able to produce savings. But where those savings go is an open question," he said, adding that one significant move would be to plow that money back into crafting higher-quality tests.

At the same time, Mr. Chingos said the field of companies and nonprofit groups vying for common-core consortia work is relatively small and mostly impervious to new, outside competition, a dynamic that could reduce potential savings for states.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, for example, estimates a cost of $20 per student, less than many of its member states are spending but an increase for six of its members, the report says.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Standardized Testing Costs States $1.7 Billion a Year, Study Says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Standardized-testing regimens cost states some $1.7 billion a year overall, or a quarter of 1 percent of total K-12 spending in the United States, according to a new report on assessment finances. The report released Nov.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Standardized testing has ignited a national debate in the last few years (or decades), and many parents feel understandably concerned about their children being judged on the basis of tests that, in some cases, don't seem to reliably correlate with actual learning or with successful college and career outcomes.

In the United States, both public and private schools use standardized assessments each school year. In public schools, students must undergo many tests to ensure they are meeting state or federal standards. Private schools have more leeway, although at Whitby we do require our students from Grade 2 on to complete the Comprehensive Testing Program from the Educational Records Bureau and the International Schools Assessment from the Australian Council for Educational Research.

At Whitby, we believe that standardized testing can benefit students-as long as it's looked at in the right light. Below we'll discuss some of the benefits of standardized assessments, as well as some of the ways standardised assessments can be negative for students.

The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing

Pro # 1. Standardized testing is a metric for learning

When Whitby students are assessed through standardized testing, we gain a valuable metric we can use to check the quality of our curriculum. With exams created and given by an independent organization, standardized test scores are useful because they come from a neutral source and give us data that we can compare to other independent schools across the United States and with other international schools across the globe.

Pro # 2. Standardized testing helps pinpoint areas for improvement

When we receive standardized test data at Whitby, we use it to evaluate the effectiveness of our education program. We view standardized testing data as not only another set of data points to assess student performance , but also as a means to help us reflect on our curriculum. When we look at Whitby's assessment data, we can compare our students to their peers at other schools to determine what we're doing well within our educational continuum and where we need to invest more time and resources.

Pro # 3. Standardized tests can help schools evaluate progress

Assessment data is also useful for year-over-year internal comparisons. We compare data over a number of years to find trends-and then trace any changes back to their source. If the math scores of our fourth grade students suddenly jump, we want to identify what change led to the improved performance, and how we can continue to implement this within our curriculum. We're also able to use a student's historical assessment data to monitor their progress and uncover any challenges they may need to overcome (as well as identifying places where they have already improved and excelled.)
Now let's take a look at what we view as the most concerning aspects of standardized assessment:
Con #1. Test scores can impact confidence

A big disadvantage of standardized testing is that it's easy to interpret a student's score as the sole judgement of that student's ability. We're constantly emphasizing at Whitby that the number is only one point of data within an array of internal assessments across many subject areas that provide us with information on a student's learning progress. There are many cases where students have demonstrated clear understanding within a subject or concept through various assessments, but aren't as skilled at taking multiple choice tests. Nevertheless, it can be hard on a student if they feel that they didn't perform as well as they'd like. In worst case scenarios, instead of determining the entire picture of learning through a review of all assessment data with their teachers, a student might determine their success based on a standardized test score that is taken once a year..

Con #2. There's pressure to "teach to the test"

When standardized exams become all important in a school or district, it has a massive impact on teaching and learning. Educators frequently start "teaching to the test" if they feel that their evaluations (and jobs) solely depend on how well students perform. Educators may also stop trying new techniques and teaching methods in the classroom. With every minute counting on the way to their students' next exam, teachers will worry that an untested method will backfire and their students will score worse than before. This comes at the cost of inquiry, engagement, creativity and risk taking in student learning.

Con #3. Scores don't provide a true picture of a student's ability

Far too many people wrongly assume that standardized testing data provides a neutral authoritative assessment of a child's intellectual ability. Cultural factors, unfamiliarity with testing methods, test anxiety, and illness can wreak havoc with how well a student performs. For that reason, it's important to dig deeper when looking at a student's test scores. Does a low score indicate a lack of knowledge about the subject or a problem with taking the standardized test? For example, an excellent writer could struggle with picking out the right answer in a multiple choice grammar and punctuation test. Yet that same student could excel at composing well-thought out, logical essays about the literature they read and enjoyed in class.

It's also easy to assume that students who score high in math are good at processing information and reasoning abstractly, but that's not always the case. In fact, researchers have found that high standardized scores have little correlation with memory, attention and processing speed. High test scores could simply mean a student excels at rote memorization and multiple choice test taking.

Our Final Assessment

Standardized testing is truthfully a very difficult issue, because we do need internal and external assessments to measure student success. Assessments are useful when they're used as data to help schools improve the quality of the teaching and learning. They become harmful, however, when tests are used to judge students' natural abilities and when educators are put under pressure to "teach to the test." Schools and parents should always look at standardized tests not as a value judgement on the student, but as an additional data point that can provide some perspective on student learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Standardized testing has ignited a national debate in the last few years (or decades), and many parents feel understandably concerned about their children being judged on the basis of tests that, in some cases, don't seem to reliably correlate with actual learning or with successful college and career outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
This article defines what standardized testing are and provides examples of different kinds of tests.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A standardized test is any form of test that (1) requires all test takers to answer the same questions, or a selection of questions from common bank of questions, in the same way, and that (2) is scored in a “standard” or consistent manner, which makes it possible to compare the relative performance…

# data[].attributes.headline
Video explaining why we should get rid of standardized testing.

# data[].attributes.subject
Video explaining why we should get rid of standardized testing.

# data[].attributes.body
This video provides a brief history about standardized testing and how they have been applied to other areas besides education utilizing examples.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should we get rid of standardized testing? - Arlo Kempf

# data[].attributes.body
This article goes into depth about how standardized testing is utilized to gain a better sense of understanding about how well public schools are performing and understand what changes need to be made to ensure students are excelling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every state uses standardized tests to find out how students in public schools are doing. Federal law requires it. But why? And how do standardized tests actually help students? The short answer: Standardized tests are a spotlight that helps education leaders see what effect schools are having on students. With that information they can make changes to address students' needs. Like any spotlight, state tests cannot shed light on the entire scene, but they can illuminate some of the trouble spots and positive signs along the path to providing a better education.

Stressed-Out Students Is Not the Goal
It's not hard to find stories of parents and students who feel the pressure during testing season, or those who are concerned about how much time test prep takes away from class time. But the purpose of state tests isn't to test individual students (or to stress them out); it's to check the education system as a whole. The results are a reflection on school leaders at the local, district and state levels. It's also important to note: Not all tests are from the state. Individual schools, teachers and school districts may issue their own tests that have nothing to do with the state-required one. Those tests may come with their own set of consequences. Schools don't always make it clear which is which, so if you're not sure, ask your principal.
Standardized Tests Have an Indirect, but Important Impact on Students
Standardized tests help principals and other school leaders figure out which groups of students are struggling and gives them the evidence they need to push for changes. Before we had standardized tests, some might have been able to intuitively sense which students were falling behind, but they didn't have much in the way of hard evidence to back it up. Without evidence, it's hard to justify the sometimes uncomfortable changes needed to help students. And as someone once said, if nothing changes, then nothing changes. The impact on your student may not be direct, and it may not be immediate, but it still matters. Lower-income families, Black, Hispanic, Latino and Native American students, students with disabilities and those learning English as a second language are all groups of students who tend to struggle the most in our public schools. Add them all up, and in many areas that's a majority of the students in almost any given district. White students who are comfortably in the middle class are performing better than those groups on average, but that doesn't mean they're doing well. Take White eighth-grade students, for example, whose families make enough to pay for school lunch (in other words, they don't qualify for a free and reduced-price lunch program). For the last decade, only about 44 percent of those students have met the proficiency standard in reading. Without standardized tests, we wouldn't know any of that. And without knowing, education leaders couldn't effectively make decisions on new programs, teacher and staff changes, or where to target additional funding to produce better outcomes for kids. Pretty much nobody likes to take tests, but almost everyone agrees we need to know how well schools are doing. And while there are some valid criticisms about the limitations of tests, clearly having an imperfect test is better than no test at all. Just like having a spotlight is better than feeling our way in the dark.

Lane Wright is Director of Strategic Growth at Education Post. In addition to this role, he tells stories that help families understand how their schools are doing, how to make them better and how policy plays a role. He's a former journalist and former press secretary to Florida's governor, and he's got a knack for breaking down complex education reform policy issues into easy-to-understand ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does Standardized Testing Help Students?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every state uses standardized tests to find out how students in public schools are doing. Federal law requires it. But why? And how do standardized tests actually help students? The short answer: Standardized tests are a spotlight that helps education leaders see what effect schools are having on students.