Valerie Strauss ran this great article by Jim Arnold and Peter Smagorinsky. Jim Arnold recently retired from the superintendent’s position of the Pelham City Schools in Georgia. Peter Smagorinsky is Distinguished Research Professor of English Education at the University of Georgia.
Arnold and Smagorinsky describe the many millions spent on testing, with no end in sight, and ask how that money might be better spent.
They write:
“Last fall journalists exposed the wretched conditions at Trenton High School in New Jersey. Brown water oozed from drinking fountains, rodents roamed freely, teachers and students became physically ill from being in the building, mold covered the walls, roofs were leaking, ceilings were crumbling onto the students and teachers below, streams of water ran down hallways, and morale throughout the building was, not surprisingly, well below sea level. Conditions reached the point where they met the state criterion of being “so potentially hazardous that it causes an imminent peril to the health and safety of students or staff.”
“Governor Chris Christie, however, issued a stop work order that ended an initiative to make essential repairs on this school and over 50 others that were dangerously unsanitary and just plain dangerous, not because of the menace of free ranging, gun-toting ruffians and thugs but because the decrepit buildings themselves required so much maintenance.
“While halting repairs on schools, what the state did invest in was accountability for teachers. No one was accountable for the conditions of the schools until a citizen uprising and news coverage forced a building initiative that fortunately will provide the people of Trenton with a modern facility. But while dodging chunks of falling ceilings, treading cautiously around scurrying rats, and attempting to teach through building-induced illnesses, teachers remained accountable to the standards that Education Secretary Arne Duncan believes can determine their fitness for the classroom.
“We live in Georgia, another state in which schools are grossly underfunded yet consultants and testing corporations are living large off the investment of state funds in holding teachers accountable, regardless of their work conditions or the life conditions of their students. Most schools cannot afford to run a full year, with roughly two-third cancelling 10-30 days every year and requiring teachers to take “furlough” days to make budget. Further, schools in our state have 20th century connectivity infrastructures and technology affordances, limiting the degree to which kids can learn what they’ll need to know to navigate and thrive in our emerging, digitally driven society.
“What we need, however, according to the people making educational policy these days, is not money dedicated to provide a full school year—and many people, evidently unaware that most Georgia schools cannot afford 180 days of school, are pushing for longer school days and years—but a more rigorous curriculum and more tests, preferably more rigorous tests. We use the term “rigorous” ironically given that the rigor of curriculum and assessment are claimed again and again but never established in any clear or responsible way.
“Last year the state of Georgia Department of Education spent a little over $18 million on End of Course Tests in high school and Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) in lower grades. Plans to replace the CRCT with yet a newer testing regime, Georgia Milestones, are underway to the tune of $108 million. Georgia BOE minutes for the May 2014 meeting report that “the State School Superintendent [has been authorized] to enter into a contract with TBD at a cost not to exceed TBD in State/Federal funds for development, administration, scoring and reporting of a new student assessment system.” TBD seems guaranteed to add significantly to the millions already spent on standardized testing in Georgia….Just assuming that Georgia will spend a nearly $140 million on testing and test development next year—and we are only including End of Course, CRCT, and GMAP expenditures, which are only a few of the tests administered in Georgia—what else might the Georgia education department do with that money?”
Read on to learn their ideas about how those millions might be better spent.

The Trenton story again . . . the most recent statistic from the NJ Department of Education is that Trenton spends $21,156 per student per year. What are they doing with all that money?
As for Georgia, it spends about $14 billion per year on K-12 education. $140 million spent on testing is about ONE percent of the total.
Apparently, not even 1% of a $14 billion budget can go towards testing that might let the public know what their tax dollars are accomplishing.
LikeLike
The entire infrastructure of this country is aging out. That’s where the money is going. What should we do, fire everyone with experience, pay minimum wage to teachers and school personnel, dump the pensions and medical plans, and allow all facilities to deteriorate? You get what you pay for.
Yes, testing gives us a picture of what is going on, but so many other variables come in to play.As a teacher, I know where my students are at academically. Trust me to do my job. Please. I’m a professional with two degrees and a commitment to this job. It’s my life.
LikeLike
Oh, so sorry that the Trenton story offends your sensibilities. They are using all that money trying to patch up their crumbling schools and on all the special needs kids. Just down the road is Princeton and per student spending for Princeton is:
2011-12 Costs Amount per Pupil: $23,395. http://www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/education/csg/13/csg.pl?string=dist_code4255&maxhits=650
LikeLike
Instead of willful ignorance in service of a political ideology and knee-jerk school and teacher bashing why not do a little research to answer your own questions?
Georgia had 2,289 public schools in 2011-2012 and 212 charter schools (the last year I could find data for).
It employed 110,429 teachers.
It served 1,639,077 students.
The average beginning teacher salary was $38,924.59
The average overall teacher salary was $53,163.97.
In addition to the money spent on salaries, the single biggest expenditure in most districts, school systems must pay for:
benefits for all employees, mandated by law
principals and assistant principals, not included in the above total
building construction and maintenance
equipment for building maintenance, including mowers, edgers, dumpsters, cleaning supplies, toilet paper, paper towels, etc.
utilities for all buildings, including electricity, water, telephone, etc.
maintaining fleets of busses and gasoline for the busses
insurance on buildings, transportation, etc.
employees out of the classroom that maintain the building and transportation
textbooks
materials for extracurricular activities including sports
computer equipment and Internet connectivity
employees to maintain computer equipment
medical personnel for schools
support personnel mandated by federal law, including psychologists, guidance counselors, speech therapists, physical therapists, etc.
Teachers are not responsible for the expenditures and not a single teacher is in charge of budgeting or expenses. That comes from the state board, the state legislature, the local school board, and the federal government.
I’m sure you’ll find that in the last decade or so since NCLB that the numbers of administrators has increased exponentially. My own district just created the position of ‘VAM manager’ to deal with the state mandated teacher destruction policies. This person, when hired, will make a 6-figure salary which is over $28,000 more than any teacher can make in my district, although they will never teach a single child a single thing.
Taxpayer money goes to pay for all of these things. And guess what? Teachers are taxpayers too! It’s our money as much as your money. We have a say in how it is spent as well. I’m not happy with most of the taxpayer money being spent on out-of-classroom personnel, many of whom are despots in training and have no actual contact with students or teachers at all yet they are paid many times over what teachers make.
In a system like this where children and teachers are working in dilapidated buildings and doing without books, computers, supplies for writing, etc. those millions that go to testing could certainly go for better things like librarians, art supplies, and actual books for children to read and you could still maintain the current panopticon overseer system put in place by Bush and expanded by Obama.
If you want to know how your local schools are doing go visit them. Go to a Board of Education meeting. Talk to parents and teachers. You’ll find out a lot more than you will from one test taken on a few days over a period of several hours during a 180 day school year. I guarantee it.
You may long for education on the cheap but pretending that the money is being burned or pocketed (like charter schools do) is just an outright lie. You will get what you pay for and when the public schools are gone and our country descends into fascism and neo-feudalism don’t forget to make the connection to the loss of an educated voting populace sacrificed on the altar of capitalistic choice and profiteering.
LikeLike
Thanks, Chris. I’m always astounded when we are demonized as vacuuming up taxpayer dollars as if we live on another planet. No teacher is happy witnessing megabucks spent on uselessness while we spend out of pocket for things our students really need.
LikeLike
OK, so let’s get rid of the 1% that is spent on testing, and give teachers a 1% raise. Whoo-hoo, won’t they all be happy as clams in mud now, right? Only hitch is that the public will now have no ability to know how students are doing.
But come on, the public should just sign over their children to other people for 12 years, no questions asked. It’s just selfish for the public to expect that there be any independent check on how their own children are doing and on how $14 billion of their tax dollars are being spent.
LikeLike
WT,
“OK, so let’s get rid of the 1% that is spent on testing”
Source please
LikeLike
Ang, there are three ways–more, actually–to look at testing. One is dollar cost. Two is amount of time it takes. Three is how that time should have been spent. But also: how this overemphasis on testing distorts the purpose of education.
LikeLike
Ang, the source is the ability to divide $14 billion (Georgia’s K-12 budget, google it if you know what google is), by $140 million (the amount that this post claims is spent by Georgia on testing). If you can work up to doing the division problem here, you will find that 140 million is 1/100th of 14 billion. 1/100th, in turn, is the fraction that is equivalent to one percent.
LikeLike
And not all schools/districts have that kind of money. Utah spends just over $6,000 per student, and yet managed to find $30 million last year for the new and “improved” Common Core tests, not to mention the amount of money to set up an enormous number of computers in each school in the last few years just to give the tests (Utah was early in the computer testing department–the last four years of tests have been computer based). Utah’s amount of spending has gone down almost 10 percent in the last five years, while the student population has grown. Even the percentage of the total budget going to education has gone down. Utah used to spend, as a per taxpayer expenditure, the most or near the most in the entire nation. Now, we spend in the lowest third of states per taxpayer.
LikeLike
We can find out a little about how much is being spent running and maintaining school buildings. New Jersey spent $2.5 billion on building operations and maintenance in 2009 and Georgia spent $1.2 billion.
Source: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/expenditures/xls/table_02.xls
LikeLike
Silly, as your ECON 100 students know, the gross among spent by the state isn’t very helpful. How are these funds distributed to each of the 2501 schools in the state? What are the itemized expenditures? How much to keep the buildings and grounds in operation as opposed to repairing them or building new structures? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands (waiting for the peer reviews on your latest pubs I suppose). Would you mind putting together a more complete accounting for us? That might be more helpful.
LikeLike
I don’t know if your numbers are right or wrong, but what I do know is that testing does NOT let the public know what their tax dollars are accomplishing. I live in a state that is moving to reduce testing and has not yet used it to rate teachers (it would be super-expensive to rate teachers this way because most teachers don’t have standardized tests in their subject, and some who do have it in their subject don’t have it at their level, e.g. calculus) — these tests simply don’t provide that information.
Speaking as a taxpayer, I am completely satisfied that I can tell exactly what my tax dollars are accomplishing in MY local public school — their test results mean NOTHING to me. As for the school in which I teach, I see the accomplishments every day — and so does our community. “No expensive (but always low quality, including the new common core tests) standardized tests needed”
LikeLike
Actually, what I should have said instead of “test results mean nothing” is that “test results mean that schools are wasting money on testing and high results indicate teaching to the test, which is bad”.
LikeLike
Here’s the sad part. In NYC an innovative, well run school that has maintained an A rating gets funds cut and must shut down programs that led them to that achievement. School that rises from a D to a C gets more money for improvement. In NYC it pays to be mediocre. Where is the logic in that?
LikeLike
It makes an educator sick to even think about how much all of this money could truly help our kids. We love our kids, and many of our kids are so poor and have nothing. Around five years ago I sadly watched Home Economics and Industrial Arts cut from our middle school. These two classes helped our middle school students with life skills, finances, and creating something with their hands from scratch. These were priceless classes, and they are so missed. In Home Economics they actually got to cook and bake, and they learned what “one cup” really meant. In Industrial Arts they learned “hands on” how to measure to build shelves, cupboards, and many other wooden treasures. My students were proud as they showed me a toilet paper holder that they would present to their mom later that day. I was honored to taste homemade donuts and fruit pizza that they had created in class. Many were excited to go to the store with their moms to create that fruit pizza for supper that night. Many kids were given opportunities in these classes that they will never experience at home. Now, my students next year will be tested 40 hours online in order for the Pearson executives to buy another summer house.
I am sure that private schools still offer these special opportunities to their students. Sometimes I wonder if once the public schools are destroyed, that they will then set their vengeance on the charter schools to destroy them. Once those schools are gone, education will be on a pay only basis – which will limit education to the rich only. I know this all sounds crazy – but everyone has to admit that the educational policies of the Obama administration are crazy. Where is this all headed?
LikeLike
Tests only show how well kids take tests, not how much of the knowledge is actually retained. I was very poor at taking the standardized tests when in school, but I remembered everything I was taught. I could never think fast enough to take timed tests, and so never did very well. Teachers found that I was a lot smarter than the tests suggested simply by checking the assignments I handed in on a daily basis.
LikeLike
Someone who takes an hour to figure out that 2+2=4 is dumber than someone who answers it instantly, even if they both get the right answer.
LikeLike
Not all people test or think the same way. Your snarkiness is unnecessary and unhelpful.
LikeLike
are you saying that a person with dyslexia is stupid? Let me explain my stance. Standardized tests rarely give you an hour per section. the most you might get is 15 minutes. I know. I had to take the ITED tests every year in grade school. there weren’t ANY segments that gave an hour. not one. I knew the answers going in, because it is pretty standard. I would blank on the simplest of questions simply because we only had 15 minutes to answer over 200 questions. regular classroom tests were a different animal altogether. I had no problem with those.
LikeLike
Of course, it’s not just the money wasted, it’s also the wasted time. My students spent at least NINE 70-minute periods in CC testing this year, and many spent much longer. Students were in testing for the last SEVEN weeks of school.
LikeLike
It would be interesting to know just how much this country spends on testing every year (including the opportunity costs) and compare it to just what, exactly, it has accomplished. I think the taxpayers are owed an explanation for what is certainly hundreds of millions of dollars of their money.
http://ventingmycynicism.blogspot.com/2014/04/was-proctoring-fcat-worth-50-million-of.html
LikeLike
There are better ways of seeing what a student truly knows and evaluating teachers than through a multiple-choice test. Simply having the students compile their work into an academic portfolio would show a student’s knowledge of the material. The assignments assigned for the portfolio and the lesson plans of the teacher would be a great indicator for teacher evaluation. The problems to this method are cost and time.
LikeLike