Most policy changes involve real and difficult tradeoffs. Climate change is obviously a real problem, and it’s also true that reducing carbon emissions and shifting to clean energy sources causes disruptions in industries and regions that are accustomed to producing fossil fuels. Zoning changes to allow multistory apartments creates more housing, and also changes the neighborhood—for better and worse.
But in online learning, there’s a policy shift underway that is remarkable for the high ratio of real benefits to minimal costs, and few real negative impacts. That shift, which states are increasingly adopting, is allowing a remote state testing option for students enrolled in online schools.
The problem is conceptually simple. Students in public schools are supposed to be assessed at certain grade levels and subjects based on state requirements, with the floor for assessment frequency being set by federal policy. These assessments are used to evaluate how well schools and districts are performing. For students in physical schools, that means certain days are used for state testing. Students go to school and take state tests instead of some of their usual instructional time. (Arguments regarding whether these assessments are appropriate, useful, etc. are beyond the scope of this post and the white paper, because as of April 2025 those assessments are still required by federal policy.)
The problem is that students in online schools don’t have an obvious place to go, as many online schools do not have any physical location for students. In addition, many online schools serve students scattered across the state, so they can’t simply set up one location for students to go to for testing. Until recently, states did not allow for online state assessments.
The solution created by online schools is costly and cumbersome. The schools set up testing locations across the state. They rent facilities, hotel rooms, and everything else needed to administer the assessments. The costs can average several hundred dollars per student, which add up to millions of dollars per year for large online schools in direct costs, in addition to the staff time.
In addition, it’s likely that online student results on these assessments are worse because the students are being tested in an unfamiliar location and modality, with added stresses of travel and even being away from family in some cases.
Why has this situation persisted more than two decades into the availability of online schools? The answer seems to be a combination of the small percentage of students who are online, bureaucratic rules, fear of the unknown, and inertia. Yes, there are some new costs associated with shifting testing to being available online, but the costs of onsite testing far outweigh the costs of developing online assessments. There is a better way, using online assessments and remote proctoring. And, as our new DLAC white paper documents, more states are coming around to making this shift.
The COVID-19 pandemic introduced emergency accommodations for remote proctoring of standardized tests. This shift demonstrated that remote testing could be valid and reliable while alleviating many of the logistical challenges associated with in-person testing. As a result, at least 16 states have adopted or are piloting remote proctoring for state accountability tests.
Still work to do
The policy winds are shifting, but there is still work to do. The DLAC study suggests both policy recommendations and additional future directions for additional work.
Policy Recommendations
The paper outlines several recommendations for expanding remote proctoring:
- Statewide Adoption: All states with online schools should make remote proctoring of state assessments an option for these schools.
- Flexible Implementation: States should avoid rigid policies (e.g., fixed student-to-proctor ratios) that could hinder adaptation as technology evolves.
- Transparency: States should publish detailed reports on their remote testing experiences to inform best practices.
- Vendor Accountability: Testing vendors must enhance their platforms to support secure and efficient remote proctoring.
- Research Investment: Large-scale studies are needed to explore the long-term impacts of remote proctoring on participation rates, student performance, equity perceptions, and test security.
Future Directions
As more states shift to allow remote testing, we believe there is a need for ongoing research in several areas that include:
- The relationship between remote proctoring availability and student outcomes.
- Best practices for implementing equitable and effective remote testing systems.
- The potential expansion of remote proctoring to high-stakes exams like the SAT or ACT.
Traditional in-person state testing imposes significant burdens on online students and their families. Remote testing, in contrast, offers a promising alternative that enhances accessibility, reduces stress, improves outcomes, and saves money without compromising test validity or reliability. By adopting flexible policies and investing in research and technology improvements, states can create a more equitable assessment system that meets the needs of all learners.
For more detail, download the new DLAC study here!
We welcome your comments in the DLAC Community Portal’s Blog Discussion Group. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to join the conversation.