Funding the WASL, Pt. 2

In last month’s issue we re-visited how the new state test – the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) – came to be and how a number of private school students, teachers and administrators were integral in its development. When the state was ready to formally adopt the fourth grade test (the first phase to become mandatory for the public schools), an offer was made to the private schools that had participated in the pilot to have them continue to use the assessment and the state would pay for the scoring. Because the WASL includes a great deal of short answer and essay type responses, each test needs to be reviewed by a human scorer. The cost (figured to be around $23 per test) is significantly greater than the machine-scored multiple choice tests such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) and others. (Typically, these machine-scored tests range in cost between $2-4 per student, depending upon the service.) Many schools at the time accepted the offer.

At some point after this first year, a question was raised in Olympia as to whether it was constitutional for the state to pay for the scoring of the WASL test for students enrolled in religiously affiliated private schools. It has long been held by some in the legal counsel to the State Superintendent that specific wording in our state’s constitution creates a insurmountable wall, much more rigid than federal language, preventing state funds from being used for any K-12 program benefiting students enrolled in religious schools. Thus, the WASL scoring came to an abrupt halt.

This unhappy news was not met with bland acceptance. Numerous efforts began in an attempt to have the decision reversed. Many policymakers, including members of the Commission on Student Learning (CSL), the State Board of Education (SBE), even some legislators, supported finding a way to make this work. To solve the immediate need, WFIS, with help from staff at the U.S. Dept. of Education in Washington D.C., identified federal assistance already earmarked for education reform in this state that could be re-directed to address the dilemma. Unfortunately, those who had discretion over those funds felt it would not be in the best interest of the state’s public schools to divert those dollars.

Just how much are we talking about? In addressing that question before the CSL in 1997, WFIS data showed that if every 4th, 7th and 10th grade student enrolled in private schools took the WASL and submitted it for scoring at $23 per test, the cost would have been $344,450. In the spring of 2000, approximately 25% of those eligible students actually were assessed. Using the same figures, that amounts to a bill of less than $90,000. Hardly a drop in the bucket of the more than $2 billion dollars of state assistance to K-12 public schools each year.

And so it continues. Not every private school in the state is interested in accessing the WASL as a means of assessing their students. For instance, some have chosen, through philosophical or religious stance, to distance themselves from the performance standards established by the state. For them, WFIS continues to work diligently to protect their right to operate by an independent mission. For many of the high schools, questions still center around the place of the 10th grade test within the scheme of their curricular offering. Does one more test make sense at this time? Since private school students are exempt from the Certificate of Mastery, are there more meaningful ways for these schools to identify student competence in relation to graduation? At the same time, WFIS member schools, regardless of their philosophy, have steadfastly maintained that those institutions that wish to offer the WASL should be able to do so at no additional cost to their enrolled families – bona fide tax contributing citizens of Washington State.

Private school groups in the state will continue to push for full, paid access to the WASL as one resource for our families. Last year, we came extremely close to passage of HB 2803, a provision to pay for the tests. Rep. Kathy Lambert (R – 45th), prime sponsor of the bill, was instrumental in helping it move through the House with a favorable 90-6 vote, only to see it die on the Senate floor, another hostage of the protracted budget dispute between the caucuses. Even had it passed, we would undoubtedly have seen it challenged by those who firmly believe that the framers of our state constitution intended their far-reaching preamble should apply only to the common school system.

“It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction of preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.” (Article IX, Sec. 1)

Creative options are possible. How badly do we want it?