Programs like No Child Left Behind and Common Core once looked like they would lead to a uniform type of testing nationwide but, as every school administrator knows, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) that passed in 2015 reversed much of the federal efforts and handed testing control back to the states.

As is often the case in politics, when control is offered it is usually taken and can produce wildly different results.

Under ESSA requirements for the 2017-18 school year, school districts are expected to meet various accountability metrics, including performance on state tests. States will have to submit reports to the Department of Education regarding testing, including the percent of students who are taking the tests. But, enacting new rules is easier than implementing them.

There are instances where state testing is unevenly matched to education standards that would allow students to move easily into college. In other examples, the tests themselves have been flawed. Still in some districts the testing requirements have led to open revolt by parents and educators alike.

Those rejecting state testing are labeled as part of the “opt-out” movement. It is tempting to paint opt-out parents in a group who resist mandatory vaccinations or fluoridated water, or believe in government conspiracies. Or those who are simply afraid that their children might fail the tests. While that may be a tempting characterization, it doesn’t bear much relationship to the truth in many districts.

Some studies have suggested that many parents who opt-out are white, middle class and may have students who could perform to standards on the tests.

Some educators would suggest that math is math and traditional testing best evaluates student knowledge. Not Hynes. He sees subject matter as inter-related and believes working across disciplines and in groups is a more realistic way of both making assessments and preparing students for real life.

“Our AP calculus students work on a problem as a group and then have an oral presentation to demonstrate how they figured out the answer, and each student has a role in coming up with that construct,” Hynes said.

He admits that such assessments would be more work for teachers and be far different from what he calls a “Pavlovian” teaching approach where “bell rings, kids move to another place and the teachers have very limited time to collaborate or cross-pollinate ideas.”

Hynes is optimistic that change will come to student testing, particularly in New York, where a new education commissioner has been appointed who is herself a former superintendent in the Bronx and was also once a teacher.

One of the most comprehensive studies of standards and education applications is being done by The Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction and Learning (C-SAIL). C-SAIL is examining the implementation of college-ready and career-ready standards in five states. C-SAIL is run by one of the country’s most distinguished education research professionals, Andy Porter. He is the former dean of the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education and the author of numerous papers on testing and standards-based education reform.

“Well, what I’ve particularly investigated in my work is something that’s called ‘alignment,’ or ‘standards-based reform,’ which is the general approach to education policy. You start with standards that say what teachers are to teach and what students are to learn and then you build, in theory, everything consistent with those standards. So, the tests are supposed to be consistent with the standards. I’ve looked at that and they generally are not,” Porter said.

Aligning testing to standards sounds simple enough, but Porter acknowledges the fact that most states just aren’t very good at it. He said, “Testing has been around forever, but new tests are made every time when they adopt new standards … They’ve adopted these Common Core standards and built new tests when they did that.”

Then Common Core itself became what Porter called a “political hot potato” in some state legislatures.

“Several states have said that they had originally adopted these Common Core standards and now they’re saying that they’re not – but then they have to come up with new standards,” said Porter. “We’ve taken a look at how different the new standards are from the original Common Core state standards that were rejected and they’re pretty similar.”

The five states being studied by C-SAIL include California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio and Texas. Porter uses Kentucky as an example of how testing and standards can change in response to political change.

“Kentucky was an early adopter among states of these Common Core standards and they built tests aligned to those standards before anybody else. So, we thought they would be out front. I’m pretty sure they were, but by the time we started studying them they had a new governor and a new superintendent of public instruction for the state and the new people were less committed to the standards,” Porter said. “So it looks like they’re losing their lead. I think states make decisions based on politics sometimes rather than quality.”

Porter isn’t at all sure that state-by-state standards or testing methodologies are bringing much benefit to K-12 education. He said, “There’s not much that’s new about standards, assessments, teaching and learning now that makes me feel like we’re in a truly different place.”

He regrets that many states have abandoned any appreciation for national, standardized testing as epitomized by Smarter Balanced and The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC).

“When the Common Core state standards became politically unviable in a lot of places, it really took the foundation out from underneath these two testing programs,” said Porter. “It’s hard to feel more optimistic now because it’s hard to put your finger on anything that’s available that seems any better than it has been.”

Most educators agree that we are not where we need to be and that the challenges leading up to ESSA reporting are legion, especially when it comes to testing. The testing should provide a real assessment of school performance. It should be rewarding rather than punitive. It should align with standards that will allow students to prosper in college or in careers. It should be politically viable from one state to another and one political term to another.

Most of all, it should be a test students are willing to take.