The Overuse of Standardized Testing

One of my recent posts included ways to improve schools and educational outcomes. My first point was this: “Get rid of or greatly reduce standardized testing. It is a waste of time and money in most cases. Teachers can already guess who will do well and who won’t, so why bother? I’m sure someone is making lots of money on these, but why do we keep doing it if it doesn’t serve our students?

People think standardized tests are necessary for accountability. Let me explain why that is wrong.

First, how many tests do kids actually take in a school year? It goes far beyond whatever state test is administered, usually toward the end of the school year.

In my previous district, there were lots of tests. Each marking period students took:

A computer-based math assessment

A computer-based reading assessment

A writing assessment, which included a lengthy reading passage with multiple-choice questions

Each of these assessments took at least one class period. So 3 days of instruction were lost.

There were also common math, science, and social studies assessments. I think they were quarterly as well. Another 3 days of lost instruction, for a total of 6 out of 45 days every quarter.

The state tests also took up a lot of time–4 separate ELA assessments, 3 math, and 2 science for certain grades. More lost instructional time.

Then, if a student is an English Learner (EL), they also have to take the WIDA model which tests listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Speaking has to be given individually, sacrificing even more class time for testing. ELs also take the regular WIDA in the same domains. Between these assessments, another 8 days of class time taken at a minimum. Sometimes reading or writing takes longer, so students have to miss another class to finish.

Calculate the time involved, and you get 31 days out of the school year for most students and close to 40 for ELs. 

One of the main problems with overtesting is instructional time lost. Now, if the results were timely and useful, it might be worth it. However, for some of these assessments, we didn’t get results until the summer. So by the time teachers could actually look at and assess the data, it was already several months old. We know that feedback must be more timely.

Even for those assessments that provided more immediate feedback, it wasn’t that useful. Most teachers can tell who will do well based on observation and classroom performance. Also, you only get the results. There aren’t suggestions on how to help students improve on skills, just that they need to improve. Yes, teachers know how to work on skills, but when you have a class of 20 or more students, each with different skills to work on, it gets more challenging to meet those needs.

This leads to another problem with these assessments. Teachers are told to differentiate instruction to ensure each student is able to access learning. The tests are one-size-fits-all. Think of an English Learner who only been in US schools for a few years. That student needs more time to acquire proficiency, but must still take the grade level test. In my last year of teaching, a new student from Turkey had to take the math PSSA, even though he didn’t understand most English. So much for differentiation.

Testing all the time leads to stress and burnout. Students understand that their schools will be evaluated based on these tests and worry about their performance. Some fear poor performance will be reflected in their grades or their ability to pass to the next grade. Other students get so tired of taking tests that they don’t put in their best effort. All of this affects outcomes, too. And it narrows what is viewed as success. Some people are not good test takers. That doesn’t mean that they can’t be successful or that they lack talent. Prioritizing a snapshot of a school year is not an accurate measure of how well schools and students perform.

One of the big issues is how standardized testing narrows the curriculum and focuses on a narrow set of skills. Students need to learn how to solve problems and think critically. These assessments often penalize creative thinking, instead assessing responses based on a narrow rubric, especially in writing. Students are taught how to answer prompts, which have no connection with real-world writing skills. 

Standardized testing is an issue that must be addressed. It has a place, but it should not be the central focus of school or the primary evaluation tool of students and teachers. Many other instruments could be used: portfolios, project-based learning, presentations, student-teacher conferences on learning, and teacher feedback are only a few. It is time to allow students to explore their creativity and become engaged in learning again. And it is time to trust teachers to evaluate their students’ learning and make adjustments as needed.

My plan was to describe some alternatives to the one-size-fits-all standardized tests, but I think I’ve gone on long enough for this post and will save that for next time.