ATF: ITP Responds

The Iowa Testing Programs, rather unsurprisingly, disagrees with the Assessment Task Force recommendation to adopt the Smarter Balanced assessments. They have provided the following three documents to Iowa legislators:

Comparison_between_the_Iowa_Assessments_and_Smarter_Balanced_Assessment_Consortium

ITP_SMARTER-BALANCED_2015

Task_Force_timelines_3

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “ATF: ITP Responds

  1. Matt Townsley

    Thanks for sharing these, Karen. I had not seen the “Comparing the Iowa Assessments,
    Next Generation Iowa Assessments,and Smarter Balanced Assessments” document prior to this post. One of the concerns I have read/heard about SBAC is the increased cost. It looks like the Next Generation Iowa Assessments would come at an increased cost as well. If SBAC were not in the picture, I wonder how much support Next Generation IA Assessments would have with those who are anti-SBAC? In other words, is the $4.25 to $15.00 increase still hard to swallow?

    1. Karen W Post author

      That’s a good question, Matt. I think that HF 312 suggests that even with SBAC in the picture, at least some anti-SBAC people are also anti-NGIA.

      I also think that with 1.25% looking more and more likely, the increase to $15 might be hard to swallow even for people not particularly anti-SBAC.

    2. Chris

      Yes, I agree. I wouldn’t be at all happy that we’d be spending over three times as much money on these assessments than we are spending now. But at least we know what the number is; we have no idea how many times more we’d be spending if we adopt SBAC, because the technology costs (and the science assessment costs) are completely unknown, and likely to be enormous.

      Also, as I understand it, the $4.25 tests are being phased out and replaced with the $15 NGIA, so it’s not clear how we could keep testing costs where they are now. Nonetheless, a three-fold increase is still bad news, especially when it’s not clear that there’s any great benefit flowing from it. The legislature ought to be thinking outside the box here. For example, will they ever give any serious consideration to sampling, rather than testing all students? There would be enormous savings there. But since apparently no one in charge can even articulate exactly how the results will be used to improve education, how would they even begin to discuss the costs and benefits of sampling?

Comments are closed.