RALEIGH — Should the North Carolina General Assembly eliminate end-of-course tests in U.S. history, civics and economics, Algebra II, and physical science? The fate of these four high school tests has been one of the most contested issues of this young legislative session.
With the backing of public school teachers and groups like the N.C. Association of Educators, House Bill 48, a bipartisan measure that would eliminate standardized tests not required by the federal government, easily passed a House vote this month. Yet the bill’s fate is less certain in the Senate.
Wake County Superior Court Judge Howard Manning, along with former N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Burley Mitchell and former Justice Bob Orr, contend that the elimination of these tests would violate North Carolina’s constitutional guarantee of a sound basic education under the well-known Leandro decision, which Manning oversees. In a detailed 22-page letter to House and Senate leaders, Manning wrote, “EOC testing in those and other core Leandro subjects is constitutionally mandated as part of the accountability part of the process and therefore, not subject to elimination by House Bill 48 or other legislative action.”
While I do not condone judicial interference in the legislative process, Manning’s general argument has merit. A statewide testing and accountability system is a satisfactory way to determine if the state is fulfilling its constitutional requirement to provide all children a sound basic education.
After all, other types of accountability measures that the state may employ to meet this requirement, such as school choice and portfolio assessments, are not as widely accepted. Thus, the wholesale rejection of integral parts of the state testing program may pose a thorny constitutional problem that would have to be sorted out by the courts for years to come.
On the other hand, North Carolina’s testing program is far from ideal. In a 2010 study of two high school tests that would be eliminated under H.B. 48, the John Locke Foundation found that college and university faculty from across the state were appalled by questions selected from North Carolina’s 2008-09 end-of-course tests in U.S. history and civics and economics. The survey results substantiate complaints from public school teachers who point out that even a few poorly constructed test questions undermine months of classroom instruction and weeks of test preparation. For students, well-reasoned, but incorrect, answers to a handful of test questions can mean the difference between meeting and not meeting state proficiency standards.
Therefore, if a statewide testing program is “constitutionally mandated as part of the accountability process,” then we need an alternative to the tests written and administered by the state Department of Public Instruction.
The next step for legislators is straightforward — require DPI to adopt norm-referenced, preferably nationally normed, tests that would allow North Carolinians to compare the performance of our public school students to their counterparts in other states. The state would be in good company. According to the latest data available, 16 states use an off-the-shelf norm-referenced test, while another eight states use a test that includes norm-referenced elements.
Testing companies, such as CTB McGraw-Hill, offer norm-referenced tests in all subjects required to be tested under Leandro. For example, TerraNova, Third Edition generates norm-referenced achievement scores, criterion-referenced objective mastery scores, and performance-level information for reading, language, mathematics, science, and social studies tests in grades one through 12.
Of course, the TerraNova tests are just one of a number of possibilities. Ideally, the state would conduct an open bidding process to determine which testing company would provide North Carolina with the best product at the lowest price.
Let’s use H.B. 48 as an opportunity to replace the tests that have caused legitimate concerns for so many lawmakers and educators.
Dr. Terry Stoops is director of education studies for the John Locke Foundation.