	Introduction

The Title I-A program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107-110 ), is the largest source of federal funding for elementary and secondary education. States that receive Title I-A funding must comply with certain requirements related to measuring and evaluating student achievement. To help states pay the costs of meeting the expanded Title I-A requirements regarding standards and assessments, the NCLB authorized a new annual Grants for State Assessments program (Section 6111). The primary purpose of this report is to explore issues related to the cost of assessments and to provide an understanding of the factors that influence the overall cost of assessment systems. As Congress considers the reauthorization of the ESEA, it is likely that the standards and assessment provisions within Title I-A will be reviewed and debated. State assessments are currently the primary policy tool used to measure whether schools, LEAs, and states are meeting certain academic targets. As such, the effectiveness of federal policy is dependent upon a valid state assessment system. Designing an assessment system requires states to consider certain tradeoffs in order to meet the requirements of the NCLB while meeting state requirements and containing costs. Decisions made in the design of a state assessment system have direct implications for the validity of the NCLB accountability system and direct consequences for schools. In addition, ESEA statutory provisions, as amended by the NCLB, specify that state assessments shall
be used to measure the achievement of all students; be aligned with the state's academic content and performance standards, and provide coherent information about student attainment of such standards; be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable, and be consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional technical standards; be used only if the state educational agency (SEA) provides to the Secretary of Education (hereafter referred to as the Secretary) evidence from the test publisher or other relevant sources that the assessments used are of adequate technical quality for each purpose required by the ESEA; measure the proficiency in mathematics, reading or language arts, and science for grades 3 through 8 and one grade in high school; involve multiple up-to-date measures of student academic achievement, including measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding; provide for "reasonable" adaptations and accommodations for students with disabilities; provide for the inclusion of limited English proficient students, who shall be assessed, "to the extent practicable," with assessments in the language that is most likely to yield accurate data on achievement; include students who have attended schools in an LEA for a full academic year; produce individual student reports that allow parents, teachers, and principals to understand the academic needs of the students, and include information regarding achievement aligned with state academic content standards in an understandable format as soon as is practicably possible; enable results to be disaggregated within each state, LEA, and school by gender, race/ethnicity, English language learner (ELL) status, migrant status, students with disabilities as compared to nondisabled students, and economically disadvantaged students as compared to students who are not economically disadvantaged; be consistent with accepted professional testing standards; objectively measure academic achievement, knowledge, and skills; and not evaluate or assess personal or family beliefs and attitudes or publicly disclose personally identifiable information; and enable itemized score analyses to be produced and reported to LEAs and schools so that parents, teachers, principals, and administrators can interpret and address the specific academic needs of students as indicated by the students' achievement on assessment items. It focuses on assessment development, scoring, policy choices, and implementation practices. State Variability in Expenditures

Previous reports of state expenditures on assessment activities required by the NCLB have clearly demonstrated the variability across states. Across states with varying populations, consistent average trends emerge. Factors that likely contribute to the cost of state assessment systems are design elements of assessment development, scoring, and differences in policy choices and implementation practices (see " Factors that Influence the Cost of State Assessment Systems "). Efficiencies may also require balancing state independence with promoting state consortia in order to realize economies of scale. One option is the use of distributed scoring. Technology

As technology becomes less expensive, online delivery of state assessments may lower the cost of state assessment systems. Under the Grants for State Assessments program, statutory provisions specify that the Secretary shall make grants to states for the following purposes:
to pay the costs of the development of the additional state assessments and standards required by Section 1111(b) of the NCLB, which may include the costs of working voluntary partnerships with other states, at the sole discretion of each state; and if a state has developed the assessments and standards required by Section 1111(b) of the NCLB, to administer assessments or carry out other activities related to ensuring that the state's schools and LEAs are held accountable for the results.
The Title I-A program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107-110), is the largest source of federal funding for elementary and secondary education. States that receive Title I-A funding must comply with certain requirements related to measuring student achievement by using state-level standards and assessments. The standards and assessment requirements adopted in the NCLB have resulted in vast growth in and demand for new types of assessment products. Estimates of annual expenditures on NCLB-required assessments range from $500 million to $900 million. The NCLB authorized a new grant assessment program to help states pay the additional costs of meeting the expanded assessment requirements. The purpose of this report is to provide an understanding of the factors that influence the overall cost of student assessment and a description of state expenditures on assessment systems.
This report describes factors that influence the cost of student assessment systems, including assessment development, scoring, and the effect of certain policy choices and implementation practices. It also reports and examines the results of existing research on state assessment expenditures, which highlight the variability among states in assessment expenditures. Next, the report presents the results of an analysis of how state assessment expenditures differ across states of varying populations. Results suggest that state assessment expenditures are dependent, in part, on a state's population; however, there are other factors that contribute to the overall cost of state assessment systems (e.g., design choices regarding assessment development and scoring).
This report examines assessment issues that Congress may address during the reauthorization of the ESEA. As Congress considers reauthorization, it is likely that the standards and assessment provisions will be reviewed and debated. State assessments are currently the primary policy tool used to measure whether schools, LEAs, and states are meeting certain academic targets. As such, the effectiveness of federal policy is dependent upon a valid state assessment system. Designing an assessment system requires states to consider certain tradeoffs in order to meet the federal assessment requirements while meeting state requirements and containing costs. Decisions made in the design of a state assessment system have direct implications for the validity of the federal accountability system and direct consequences for schools. This report examines assessment practices that may be cost-effective and could be promoted by federal policy, including the following:
The use of various scoring practices—such as distributed scoring, teacher scoring, and artificial intelligence—that may have the potential to lower the cost of state assessment systems while maintaining quality. The use of state consortia that promote information sharing and other collaborative practices across states that may reduce assessment costs by realizing economies of scale. The use of technology, which may increase the efficiency of assessment administration. As technology becomes less expensive, online delivery of state assessments may lower administration and scoring costs.