Here a test, there a test... STAAR Issues stacking up

When the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 3 in 2009, mandating a new, more rigorous state testing and accountability system, it was clear that meeting the higher standards would be very challenging for schools and students. What started as mild consternation on the part of school districts rose to a fever pitch by the beginning of the most recent legislative session with the specter of drastic education funding cuts looming. The pressure-relief valve, in the minds of many school district administrators, was “mandate relief.” Long before the 2011 legislative session, school district administrators began the steady drumbeat of “mandate relief” as their chief message to legislators. Although mandate relief encompassed much more than testing, testing was still a major component in the call for more “flexibility” for local school districts.

School leaders proclaimed that the new state testing system would cost the state $95 million a year at a time when that money could be put to better use in mitigating the impact of budget cuts on local school districts. They claimed the new system would also impose significant local costs by requiring large increases in the number of testing days and the costs for providing remediation for failing students. The proposed solution? Delay the new system until the state could adequately fund the underlying infrastructure necessary for students to be successful on the harder tests. That infrastructure included instructional materials related to the new tests, the Student Success Initiative (the state’s chief program for providing remediation for students failing the tests), and teacher professional development to gear up for the new and harder tests. Funding for all of these was proposed for drastic reduction or elimination in the initial Senate and House versions of the budget.

TCTA also recognized the extreme hardship that instituting a more rigorous testing system while drastically cutting education funding would impose on teachers and students. So, TCTA joined the call for delaying the new system, with delegates adopting a formal position on the issue at the TCTA annual convention.

Proposed STAAR delay seen by some as retreat from higher standards

Standing firmly in opposition to any rollback of HB 3 was one of the bill’s chief authors, Senate Education Committee Chair Florence Shapiro (R-Plano). Shapiro did not want to allow schools to use the budget crisis as an excuse to retreat from the move to higher standards represented by HB 3. In a committee hearing she called to address the issue, Shapiro arranged for TEA staff to present data to address each of the arguments that school districts were making about the issue, and TEA did just that, pointing out:

• the tests had already been largely developed and paid for, with no significant new costs to the state,
• there weren’t enough new TAKS test items available if the STAAR tests were delayed,
• TAKS could no longer effectively measure instruction since students were “topping out” on the test,
• federal law required annual testing, and
• the new testing system was aligned to the current curriculum.

TEA also noted that in 2011-12, the first year of STAAR, no accountability ratings would be issued (as is common when the state transitions from one testing/accountability system to another). Also, as had been done in the past, the passing standards for the new test would be phased in for students, increasing incrementally each year.

After this information was presented, the school districts struggled to make their case. One of their original arguments against moving forward with the new testing program was the almost two-fold increase in the number of testing days required at the high school level for the new system of end-of-course (EOC) exams. In response, TEA pointed out that since the new tests would be timed, districts would be able to offer more than one EOC exam in a given day, thus reducing the number of testing days, including retests, from 45 to 25.

As for the cost burden for districts under the new system, despite testimony from several superintendents detailing the potential increased costs to their individual districts, the school community was never able to present compelling evidence regarding the financial burden of the new system on school districts as a whole.

Giving students a break

As a result, districts were forced to rethink ways, short of delaying the new system, to lessen the impact on schools. Some of those included easing requirements for students on the new tests, such as:

• leaving it up to local school districts to decide whether to count EOC exams as 15% of a student’s grade in the corresponding course,
• modifying the scoring requirements that students would have to meet on the EOC exams in order to graduate, and 
• allowing some of the high school students required to take EOC exams to instead continue to take the TAKS test for a set amount of time.

Legislation was also filed that went far beyond just delaying STAAR, such as leaving it up to school districts to decide whether to administer any state tests at all. On the Senate side, a bill that eventually passed established a Texas High Performance Schools Consortium of 20 selected school districts to develop plans to pilot alternative assessment and accountability systems.

But the main vehicle for addressing the issue emerged in the form of HB 500, authored by House Public Education Committee Chair Rob Eissler (R-The Woodlands). Instead of requiring that a student’s performance on an EOC exam count for 15% of the student’s course grade, the bill provided that districts would decide for what portion, if any, of the course grade the EOC exam score would count. The bill would also change HB 3’s cumulative score requirement for EOC exams, giving students a choice of graduating by meeting the cumulative score on 12 EOC exams or by achieving a minimum score set by the commissioner of education on four specified EOC exams. It would also have delayed implementation of the EOC exams by allowing students entering 9th grade in 2011-12 or 2012-13 to graduate by meeting the EOC exam requirements set out in the bill or by passing current TAKS exit-level tests. 

When the bill was heard before the House Public Education Committee, TCTA testified neutrally, pointing out that the bill’s provisions allowing for local school districts to decide whether a student’s performance on an EOC exam counts as part of the student’s course grade would have widespread implications for higher education automatic admissions policies under current state law. TCTA also used the opportunity to point out that while mechanisms were in place to give schools and students an exemption from accountability during the transition to the new system, nowhere in the conversation was the notion that teachers should be given a break also – in fact, the opposite was true, with a major legislative push to up the ante for teacher accountability in the form of teacher evaluations based on student test scores.

But foes of delaying STAAR were lining up, including several business-oriented education reform groups, who objected to what they viewed as a retreat from the high standards set by HB 3. These groups held a press conference, arguing that eliminating the 15% of the course grade requirement for EOC exams would take away any motivation for students to pass the tests, depicting the paring back of the number of EOC exams that students must pass in order to graduate as lowering standards, and stating that any easing of the push for students to meet high college- and career-ready standards would result in Texas slipping further behind in the ability to compete in a global economy. 

When the bill came to the House floor for a vote, the business groups had done their best to knock it off course, distributing letters to House members making claims that, under the bill, a student could make a zero on eight of the 12 EOC exams and still graduate. Several legislators quizzed Chairman Eissler on these claims, including one of  the members of his own committee, Rep. Todd Smith (R-Euless), who stated “In my 15 years in the Texas House, the one constant has been a commitment to gradually higher standards in our accountability system with the simple goal of graduating students who are career- and college-ready. This is a major sea change. For the first time, we are dramatically lowering our standards.” 

But what was even more notable was the sheer number of anti-testing statements made by various House members during the debate. Clearly, the issue of whether the benefits were worth the burdens imposed on students, teachers and schools by the state testing system had gained traction.

In the end, the bill easily passed the House but ultimately lived a short life. It was “dead on arrival” in the Senate, with Shapiro standing firmly in the way. 

Districts struggling with 15% EOC exam grade requirement

Fast forward to October 2011 - all systems are go for implementing the new system this school year. However, school districts are still agitated about the law’s requirement for an EOC exam to count as 15% of a student’s “final grade for the course.” Rather than final grades, most school districts use semester grades to determine graduation credits and grade point averages. Unclear about how to convert the scale scores used on EOC exams into 15% of a course grade using a local grading system, school districts asked TEA for help. TEA responded that it had no authority to explain to districts how to make this conversion, especially given that school districts had sued TEA in the past when it attempted to clarify grading policies. TEA also pointed out that, given the wide variations in grading policies from district to district, it would be nearly impossible to establish a common conversion system.

This left districts on their own, but they soon looked to other avenues to get the issue addressed, including the elected State Board of Education. It wasn’t long before a proposal surfaced from SBOE member Thomas Ratliff (R-Mount Pleasant) to amend a current SBOE rule requiring students to achieve a grade of 70 or above to pass a course. Ratliff’s proposal would allow districts to grant credit for a course if the EOC exam score was the only reason the student was failing the course. While Ratliff’s proposal was discussed by the Committee on Instruction during the State Board of Education meeting in November, no action was taken. Whether the proposal will pass in time to affect calculation of spring grades is unknown at this time.

Are the benefits worth the burdens?

Although attention has recently focused on the 15% EOC exam grade requirement, the larger issue about the value of the state testing system is still roiling; evidence of this is front and center in the House interim legislative charges released in October. Prominent among the charges for the Public Education Committee is this one:

“Monitor state and local implementation of the new state assessment system (STAAR), specifically the impact on students, instruction, teachers, and graduation or promotion rates. Review how districts are implementing the requirement that the end-of-course assessment count for 15 percent of the student’s course grade. Recommend any changes to graduation or testing requirements that promote instructional rigor and support postsecondary readiness while appropriately limiting an overreliance on standardized testing.”

With the recently announced retirement of Senator Shapiro, who will not seek re-election in 2012, the groundwork has been laid for districts to make another run at getting the state to look again at our high-stakes testing system and review whether the effort is justified by the costs, both tangible and intangible.