The information yielded by standardized tests—and the analyses based on test results, like value-added—should form the basis for tough decisions regarding which schools (charter and district) or entire school systems require intervention. Parents need information about school quality, and taxpayers ought to know whether their resources are being put to good use. But at the same time, parents and policymakers alike have valid concerns about “overtesting” students, and how high-stakes tests change how schools behave.
Over the past decade, Ohio has tested social studies and science unevenly, and will continue to do so under the new assessment program set to begin in spring 2015. Under the old system, the state administered science tests in just grades 5 and 8, while math and English language arts (ELA) were assessed in all grades 3–8. Social studies was tested for just three years (2006–07 to 2008–09) in grades 5 and 8, but it was “suspended” effective fall 2009. The new state testing program continues science assessments in grades 5 and 8 and resurrects social studies testing in grades 4 and 6.
Should Ohio test in science and social studies, in addition to ELA and math assessments? And if so, how often? With that in mind, let’s look at the case to test and not to test in social studies and science—and then consider some policy options.
The case against testing in social studies and science
The case against social studies and science rests on this premise: The incremental costs of social studies and science testing could outweigh the additional school-quality information gained from those tests.
Let’s look first at the information gained when social studies and science are tested on top of math and ELA. Consider the chart below, which displays the close correlation between fifth-grade science and reading results. (Each blue dot represents an individual school’s results.) Remarkably, testing students in science as well as reading provides nearly the same information on student achievement. In other words, if students in a school scores well in one subject-area exam, they’ll very likely perform well on the other area—and vice-versa. The correlations in the other grades are similar to fifth-grade science and reading; for those results, see this document. An argument thus could be made that our view of school quality, as gauged by student proficiency, changes little when social studies and science results are added on top of math and ELA.[1]
Chart: 5th Grade Science versus Reading Proficiency Rates – Ohio Schools, 2013-14
[[{"fid":"113749","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","attributes":{"height":"356","width":"452","class":"media-element file-default"},"link_text":null}]]
Testing in additional content areas also creates avoidable costs. For one, there is the actual price of the standardized assessment and its administration, a non-trivial expense. In fiscal year 2014, the state spent roughly $68 million on student assessments; in fiscal year 2015, the state is slated to spend roughly $88 million.[2] These budget figures include math and ELA expenses—PARCC costs roughly $25 per pupil—along with the expenses associated with science and social studies tests. (Some perspective is still needed: The overall funding for K–12 education is $20 billion per year in Ohio—state, local, federal dollars.) Meanwhile, in addition to monetary costs, concerns could be raised on whether additional time on testing “crowds out” other beneficial educational activities.
The case for testing in social studies and science
But wait. Before we leave social studies and science testing in the dustbin, a compelling reason favors testing in social studies and science—and even increasing their frequency. Testing in these content areas could stem the “narrowing the curriculum” tide, the consequence of states designing their assessment and accountability systems around math and reading. (For example, as noted earlier, Ohio scrapped social studies testing in grades 5 and 8 starting in 2009.)
If schools have hollowed out civics, geography, science, etc., due to an overemphasis on math and ELA testing, students may be losing significant opportunities to learn. And in fact, they might be losing the chance to learn to read with understanding, since that hinges in large part on the knowledge acquired in science, social studies, and other content areas. Ramping up science and social studies testing—and holding schools accountable for those results—could spur schools to increase their emphasis on these content areas, which in turn would improve reading achievement. Meanwhile, scrapping social studies and science altogether, or continuing non-consecutive-year testing, may send the (wrong) message that those subjects are of less educational significance.
Assuming, therefore, that additional state testing in social studies and science could incentivize behavior that benefits students, ratcheting up testing in these areas could outweigh the costs of those tests.
Policy options
Ohio has not emphasized testing and accountability for social studies and science over the past decade. And though it will increase testing under the new system set to begin in spring 2015, these subject areas are likely to play second fiddle to math and ELA testing. This leaves policymakers in something of a pickle—and here, as I see them, are four possible options:
1.) Keep the status quo. This would ensure that social studies and science are tested, but in non-consecutive years (e.g., science in grades 5 and 8). Yet the status quo still does not compel schools to treat these subjects as equal partners with ELA and math.
2.) Eliminate testing in social studies and science. This approach would reduce the cost of testing in these areas, which gives us little new information about student achievement for school-quality purposes. However, this option would likely encourage even more focus on ELA and math and would require a waiver from federal statute which presently requires science testing at least once in elementary, middle, and high school.
3.) Increase testing in social studies and science to the same frequency as math and ELA (i.e., test these subjects annually in grades 3-8). This would balance schools’ incentives to treat each subject equally, but at the cost of more time and money. From an information perspective, although little additional information is yielded in terms of student proficiency, annual testing could help analysts construct growth (i.e., “value-added”) measures for these subjects.
4.) Decrease testing in math and ELA to non-consecutive grades to match the frequency of social studies and science (e.g., test math and ELA in grades 4 and 6, not consecutively in grades 3-8). This would also balance schools’ incentives to treat subjects equally, but at the cost of less information and accountability. It would also require federal action to grant Ohio relief from consecutive-year-testing mandates in math and ELA in grades 3–8, or more likely, a rewritten federal law that governs state accountability (No Child Left Behind).
My assumption is that schools respond to policies, including state assessment policies. But the incentives have encouraged schools to focus squarely on math and ELA to the neglect of social studies and science. My view is that Ohio policymakers should increase testing of social studies and science, creating the incentive to teach those subjects with equal rigor and urgency as math and ELA. But that also appears to be a perilous option given the politics of the day, with additional time and money costs associated as well. Admittedly, none of the policy choices are perfect, yet Ohio policymakers should be aware of viable options for science and social-studies testing—and what behaviors they incentivize through the state-testing program.
[1] It’s worth noting that schools in Ohio have not received social studies and science value-added scores.
[2] The budget figures include state and federal funds allocated to student assessment. See Ohio Legislative Services Commission, “FY 2014-15, Budget in Detail – As Enacted,” pp. 30, 33.
