Common Core not up to code in Nevada

By Ian Whitaker

Monday, May 11, 2015 | 2 a.m.

↪

The debut of computerized Common Core tests in Nevada has been a disaster.

State and school district officials watched helplessly for more than a week as problems with the testing company’s servers prevented thousands of students from logging on to take the Smarter Balanced Assessment. In Clark County, efforts to rearrange busy school schedules to take the federally mandated test were in vain as nonstop problems forced the district to halt testing indefinitely.

In California, a million students took the same test without a hitch.

So what went wrong here?

Most education officials in Nevada blame Measured Progress, the state-contracted testing company tasked with hosting the test on its servers and collecting the results for analysis.

A glossary of terms

SBAC

Short for Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, SBAC is a group of 21 states that agreed to use the computerized Smarter Balanced Assessment to test students on new Common Core standards. Many people also refer to the test in question as SBAC. The test is one of two major Common Core exams in use. The other, used by 13 states primarily along the east coast, is called the PARCC. Nevada pays roughly $1.2 million each year to use the test.

American Institutes for Research

American Institutes for Research is a Washington, D.C. nonprofit focused on social science research and education policy. Its assessment program develops tests and testing systems for schools and analyzes the results. The organization’s online testing system was used in every state that took the SBAC but encountered problems in three states, including Nevada.

Measured Progress

The company has been Nevada’s main testing vendor for more than 10 years. Measured Progress develops tests, administers tests, collects results and sends the data back to state education officials. In addition to traditional pen-and-paper tests, the company was contracted in May 2014 to handle the SBAC test. Of Measured Progress’ $7.5 million contract with the state, about $2.5 million was for the SBAC.

Because of the problems, Nevada likely will fall far short of testing the 95 percent of students required to receive millions of dollars in federal education funding.

Officials aren’t pleased. State Superintendent Dale Erquiaga notified Measured Progress that it was in breach of its contract. Erquiaga is consulting with the state attorney general about possible legal action.

In the few public statements it has made about the problems, Measured Progress points a finger at a rival testing vendor, American Institutes for Research.

Before the Smarter Balanced Assessment was created, American Institutes for Research already had developed an online testing system. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium officials paid American Institutes for Research $6 million to give its version of the system to 15 states. Under contracts many states had with the consortium, companies such as Measured Progress were to take American Institutes for Research’s code and tweak it as needed.

The source code was supposed to be released to member states and their testing companies in fall 2014, but some parts of the code came in as late as January 2015, according to Measured Progress.

“Over the last several months, Measured Progress performed exhaustive quality assurance testing every time we received updated code from the Smarter Balanced vendor,” Measured Progress CEO Martin Borg said. “Multiple and delayed deliveries of the code limited the degree to which we could confidently predict how the assessment delivery system would perform during peak traffic times.”

In an interview with EdWeek, American Institutes for Research President Jon Cohen said delays were to be expected in a large-scale rollout of a new test and downplayed his organization’s role in the technical problems.

Problems with the code also caused Nevada to push back the testing window two weeks.

“We delayed it because we didn’t have the confidence to let it go,” said Steve Canavero, deputy superintendent of achievement at the Nevada Department of Education.

Measured Progress said the problems persisted even after the company increased its server capacity.

“Even with the increased number of servers, the platform does not support the number of students currently accessing the system,” company officials said.

Before testing began, the maximum number of students who could take the test in Nevada at one time was thought to be around 50,000. After the problems started surfacing, however, Measured Progress figured that number could be as low as 10,000.

Top-level Clark County School District officials balked at the news. There are more than twice that many students in just one grade level in Clark County. Students in grades three through eight were supposed to take the test.

The events came as a shock to others, especially administrators in the school district, who largely have been left out of high-level discussions with the testing company.

“It’s hard to understand what some of the issues are,” said Leslie Arnold, the Clark County School District administrator in charge of testing.

Now, there’s nothing left for the state and its school districts to do but wait. Testing doesn’t officially end until early June. Measured Progress said it would review the failures after testing is over.

It’s likely the company’s business with Nevada also could be over. Measured Progress’ $7.5 million contract expires at the end of the year, and the state has said it would accept new bids.