A. 30 to 39
B. 40 to 49
C. 50 to 59
D. More than 60
The answer: D
And that number does not include optional assessments for students, like Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate tests, or college boards such as the ACT and SAT. Factor in those, and the number could jump to nearly 100 tests -- or more than 240 hours -- in a student's pre-college academic career.
It wasn't always that way.
For example, in the 2000-01 school year, Beaufort County public-school students could expect to take 10 to 20 standardized tests before graduation.
"When I went through school, the only tests that I remember taking, other than class tests, were the IQ test, maybe one or two achievement tests and the SAT, but testing was very rare," said state Education Oversight Committee chairman David Whittemore, who went to school in Pickens County. "But it's grown on its own."
"Each time a different law is created regarding education, there is a different assessment attached to it," Whittemore said.
For at least two reasons, the number of standardized tests rose sharply after the federal No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2001.
First, the law mandated annual assessments in all 50 states as an accountability system. Second, some states began to request waivers from various requirements of the law -- often to try new education theories -- but many of those alternatives were accompanied by a new test to measure their effectiveness.
Now students are taking high-pressure tests long before college -- often as early as kindergarten.
DIFFERENT AIMS, DIFFERENT TESTS
The prevalence of standardized testing has largely coincided with growing demands for greater accountability and data-driven decision-making about the kinds of programs and curriculum schools use. Test scores can impart objectivity to the aim of accountability and give empirical evidence on which to base decisions, some have argued.
This partly explains why many educators see the harmful side effects of assessment overload but have had little success in beating them back. Though there's a general sense that students take too many standardized tests, some of the tests can be useful to teachers.
"There can be too much testing, especially if teachers feel they are teaching to the test and not really having the opportunity or ability to teach students the material," Education Oversight Committee spokeswoman Dana Yow said. "But testing also can have positive effects because it helps with the practice of teaching."
Some standardized tests provide constructive feedback about what students know and what they have yet to master, according to Bethany McNeil, a third-grade teacher at St. Helena Elementary School.
These are called "formative assessments," used to monitor learning and provide continual feedback designed to help teachers improve instruction.
Examples of such tests administered by the Beaufort County School District include the Measures for Academic Progress, or MAP test, and the Fountas and Pinnell reading test. MAP is taken by students in kindergarten through eighth grade, and Fountas and Pinnell by students in kindergarten through fifth grade. They are administered once each in fall, winter and spring.
"Those tests are very purposeful in helping teachers understand what students know, what they don't know and what areas we need to address," said McNeil, a first-year teacher. "We have to go back and reflect on the test with students. That's what makes them worthwhile."
However, most standardized tests -- in Beaufort County, in South Carolina and across the nation -- are "summative assessments." They are used to evaluate students' mastery of subject matter at the end of instruction by measuring their test performance against a standard or benchmark. Examples include end of course exams; the Palmetto Assessment of State Standards, or PASS; and the High School Assessment Program, or HSAP.
Summative tests can raise the hackles of educators, who say they're too often used for unintended purposes -- like grading schools and rating teachers.
Several Beaufort County educators agree there is a need for summative tests. In aggregate, they can measure the performance of districts and individual schools, and results often are used to determine school funding or other forms of support.
Some also have suggested tying teacher evaluations to these tests, and that doesn't sit well with many educators.
A bill proposed by state Rep. Andy Patrick, R-Hilton Head, which would overhaul teacher evaluations and derive a chunk of them from assessments, stalled in a House subcommittee in February. Two pay-for-performance trial programs are already underway in the state -- one by the state Association for School Administrators and the other by the state Education Department -- but have yet to be analyzed to determine if they are successful.
Both McNeil and Hilton Head Island High School teacher Christine Gray said one test on one day is not an accurate or complete representation of students' knowledge or ability to learn -- and by extension, teachers' ability to teach.
"It shouldn't be about having a tool to rank schools or rate teachers," added Beaufort County Board of Education Chairman Bill Evans, a former teacher, principal and district administrator. "That shouldn't be the only reason we take tests."
Patrick said that if a student is learning, then it is safe to assume the teacher is doing a good job. He said it is fair to evaluate students and teachers by these tests to measure their growth.
Teachers said they have no problem with evaluations linked to student performance. But relying on standardized test data for that measurement is not an authentic appraisal and it doesn't show the whole picture, Evans said.
Tests weren't always intended for that purpose, district chief instructional services officer Dereck Rhoads said. Many began as ways to measure how well students were learning and to improve instruction, but now they are used to assign grades and determine funding, he said.
"If we used these tests for assessment purposes to really assess how students are doing and to identify deficiencies and correct those deficiencies, then I think it's a good thing," superintendent Jeff Moss said. "But if we're using these tests to grade students and teachers and compare them, then I don't think it's effective and don't think it really gives us what we want in the end."
There's also evidence that the more standardized tests U.S. students take, the more their performance slips.
Since the number of tests exploded in 2000, the nation's rankings on the Program for International Student Assessment have dipped in all three test subjects. The results from the 2012 assessment show that students dropped from 18th in math in 2000 to 35th, 14th in science to 27th, and 15th in reading to 24th.
Something is not working -- on that, educators, students, parents and politicians seem to agree.
What is less clear is what, if anything, can be done about it.
Follow reporter Sarah Bowman on Twitter at twitter.com/IPBG_Sarah.