For the second year in a row, a handful of states experienced significant disruptions in online testing, creating such a high level of distrust with the technology-based process that some districts chose to revert to paper-and-pencil tests in an effort to avoid problems.
Florida, Kansas, and Oklahoma all at some point during testing windows in April because of computer glitches that led to slow load times or kicked students out of the assessment systems. Indiana districts reported problems during the week of April 21, as they did practice testing, but, as of mid-week last week, officials from the state鈥檚 department of education reported that only one district was beset by significant glitches.
In each of those states, the testing problems were attributed to the assessment provider. In Oklahoma, where 8,100 students in grades 6-12 experienced disruptions, the trouble arose from , which reported a hardware malfunction. That same issue was blamed for problems in Indiana, which also contracts with Monterey, Calif.-based CTB/McGraw-Hill, during the practice-testing period.
In Florida, where 26 of 67 districts reported a variety of disruptions, test-provider Pearson, based in New York City, cited 鈥渄egraded administrative functions鈥� and quickly fixed the problems, said Joe Follick, a spokesman for the state鈥檚 department of education. And early in April, Kansas education officials were forced to after testing vendor the Center for Education Testing and Evaluation, based at the University of Kansas, in Lawrence, was overwhelmed with attacks from unidentified hackers.
鈥楨xtreme鈥� Angst
The fallout from the disruptions comes as many states are moving toward online testing鈥攕ome prompted by the expectation that assessments tied to the Common Core State Standards be given online by 2014-15. But publicity surrounding the breakdowns is creating a wariness about testing technology and its ability to operate successfully.
In the 31,000-student in Indiana, Superintendent Wendy Y. Robinson announced last week that students would take state tests using paper and pencils instead of online, following disruptions during practice tests. That meant, however, that testing will be delayed until the end of May, when CTB/McGraw-Hill can deliver printed test booklets.
"[W]e lost confidence that testing could take place without the extensive interruptions students experienced last year,鈥� Ms. Robinson said.
As occurred last year, when Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Oklahoma became mired in online-testing breakdowns, the test problems caused angst for educators and students. In Oklahoma, CTB/McGraw-Hill officials apologized and said this year鈥檚 disruptions were unrelated to the server overload which caused widespread problems in 2013.
But CTB/McGraw-Hill鈥檚 explanation of this year鈥檚 technical difficulties didn鈥檛 assuage some educators.
Keith Ballard, the superintendent of the 42,000-student , said about 2,000 students in grades 6-12 were affected by the testing complications and called the problems a 鈥渃olossal meltdown.鈥� The emphasis on high-stakes testing in the state means 鈥渢he stakes are just huge,鈥� he said.
Mr. Ballard faulted state Superintendent of Public Instruction Janet Barresi for awarding a $13 million contract to CTB/McGraw-Hill this year after last year鈥檚 problems. At that time, Oklahoma education officials did not believe there was time to rebid the contract, said Tricia Pemberton, a spokeswoman for the Oklahoma education department. Last year, CTB/McGraw-Hill paid more than $1.2 million to the state to cover damages suffered by students and teachers during testing.
This year, Ms. Barresi called for the state to not renew CTB/McGraw-Hill鈥檚 contract for the upcoming, 2014-15 school year. 鈥淚t is an understatement to say I am outraged,鈥� she said.
At a meeting with the Oklahoma State Board of Education April 24, CTB/McGraw-Hill鈥檚 President Ellen Haley apologized for the disruptions and said her company was dedicated to providing a high-quality product.
鈥淲e will do everything in our power to make sure nothing happens from here on,鈥� she said.
But some board members were not satisfied, saying the company鈥檚 poor performance cast doubt on standardized and online testing. 鈥淧eople are rising up against testing, and you鈥檙e giving them ammunition,鈥� said board member Amy Anne Ford.
Test of Confidence
The public and policymakers are right to have doubts about the reliability of online testing, which is relatively new in some states, argued Robert A. Schaeffer, the public eduction director of , which objects to increased standardized testing and is based in Jamaica Plain, Mass. The recent, high-profile disruptions reveal that 鈥渢he market has gotten ahead of the developing and testing of the product,鈥� he said, which is likely to undermine the credibility of such testing.
Brandt Redd, the chief technology officer of the 鈥攐ne of two major consortia developing common- core tests鈥攕aid he worries that negative perceptions could taint common-core online testing overall. However, he said field-testing of Smarter Balanced tests has gone more smoothly than expected. 鈥淲e can manage any [negative] message by pointing out how well it鈥檚 gone elsewhere,鈥� Mr. Redd said.
Laura Slover, the chief executive officer for the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or , which is also developing common-core tests, agreed, saying the benefits of online testing鈥攖he accessibility, fast results, and interactivity鈥攐utweigh technological risks. And, she said, today鈥檚 computer users understand that glitches sometimes occur.
鈥淭he vast majority of us use computers every day, and now and again our computers freeze up and you need to reboot,鈥� Ms. Slover said. 鈥淭hose are the known variables of 21st-century technology.鈥�
