Home

















ACCESS
Court Decisions | Litigation News | Policy News | Advocacy News | NCLB News | Archive  

GAO Releases Report Suggesting that Testing Costs May Fall to States

On May 8, 2003, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report estimating that the states would need to spend between $1.9 and $5.3 billion over the next six years to comply with testing requirements contained in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). These estimates do not include the (for some states potentially considerable) costs of developing English language proficiency testing and alternate assessments for students with disabilities. They also do not include any estimate of expenditures local school districts may incur with respect to the assessments. When NCLB was passed, Congress committed to providing a total of $2.34 billion through FY 2007 to help states meet these costs.

The law currently requires that students take state assessments in math and reading at least once in elementary school, middle school, and high school. Beginning in 2005-06, students must be tested in math and reading every year in grades 3-8. Science assessments must be developed and put into place by the 2007-08 school year. Because state assessments must be aligned with state standards, states must either develop customized tests or augment commercially available tests. (ACCESS's policy brief on NCLB explains in more detail the law's testing requirements and the considerable consequences for schools or districts that fail to make adequate yearly progress on the assessments.)

The report provides three estimates of total expenditures between fiscal year 2002 and 2008, based on different assumptions about the types of test questions states may choose to implement. If states use tests that ask students only to answer multiple-choice questions, and thus can be entirely computer-scored, GAO estimates total expenditures will be about $1.9 billion. If states keep their current mix of multiple-choice and open-ended questions, GAO estimates total cost will be about $3.9 billion. If all states move to a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended questions, GAO estimates the total cost will be $5.3 billion. Other factors that will affect states' costs include how many new tests they must develop to meet the mandates, whether the tests are entirely customized, how many of the questions on their tests they release to the public (and thus cannot reuse), how many versions of the tests they give in a given year, and how quickly they need to grade the tests. The GAO estimates are based on a survey sent to all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and detailed analysis of actual expenditures by seven states (Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia) that already have extensive testing in place. In addition to aggregate numbers, the report provided estimated costs and projected appropriations for each of the fifty states, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

The report further illustrates what state leaders have contended often over the past year: The federal government has not provided sufficient funding to meet NCLB mandates. GAO suggests that the Department of Education should help facilitate information sharing among states on strategies to reduce costs associated with the tests. Of course, the easiest way to reduce costs is to move exclusively or largely to multiple choice questions. Many educators feel, however, that open-ended questions, requiring both short and long students responses, more effectively measure certain skills such as writing, math computation, or analytic argument. Given the extent of "teaching to the test" already experienced in classrooms across the country, a shift to exclusively multiple choice tests might be expected to weaken the emphasis on certain essential skills that cannot be captured in multiple choice questions.

A bi-partisan response to NCLB is developing in many states. In addition to helping the states further with the costs associated with developing and scoring high-quality assessments, these people want Congress to provide substantial increases in Title I funding.

Prepared May 13, 2003