Standardized tests should be used as 鈥渁 flashlight鈥� on what works in education not as 鈥渁 hammer鈥� to force outcomes, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said during a speech last week.
The statement reflects a shift in thinking since annual testing became federal law more than 20 years ago, and it echoes past comments from Cardona, who warned states against using 2022 NAEP scores punitively when they showed steep drops in reading and math in September.
But federal policies stemming from the two-decade-old No Child Left Behind Act and its successor, the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act, make it difficult for states to use standardized tests in any other way, policy experts say. And despite changing attitudes, there鈥檚 little indication that the nation鈥檚 schools will move away from the current form of test-based accountability anytime soon.
鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 matter what the sentiment is,鈥� said Jack Schneider, an education professor and policy analyst at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell who is also an advocate for including alternative measures like school climate, teacher ability, and school resources in accountability policies. 鈥淭he law is structured so that it really isn鈥檛 much of a flashlight.鈥�
Cardona did not announce any new testing-related policies or plans for the Education Department in his Jan. 24 speech to educators, so it鈥檚 unclear if the agency plans to address concerns about test-based accountability through grants, waivers, or rulemaking. The department hasn鈥檛 announced any plans to revise standardized testing policy.
Still, his words reflect ever-changing opinions about standardized tests and what role they should play in evaluating school performance.
鈥淗e鈥檚 trying to bridge two eras,鈥� Schneider said. 鈥淩ight now, we are still very much in the era of test-based accountability because that鈥檚 the law. He also recognizes that鈥檚 not going to persuade very many people for much longer as a mechanism for school improvement.鈥�
The lasting impact of No Child Left Behind
The debate over school accountability and standardized testing has been going on for over half a century, said Daniel Koretz, an education professor at Harvard University who has dedicated his research to high-stakes testing.
The original designers of standardized tests envisioned the tests as a way to measure individual students鈥� performance, not as an aggregate measure of schools鈥� performance, Koretz said.
They 鈥渨ere adamant that these tests cannot provide a complete measure of what we care about, what our goals of education are,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e necessarily incomplete.鈥�
Despite that original intention, states and the federal government found standardized tests to be an efficient way to determine whether schools were performing to standards. And test proponents have said they鈥檙e necessary for ensuring English learners, students with disabilities, students of color, and low-income students don鈥檛 fall behind.
The government鈥檚 role in using tests to evaluate schools鈥攔ather than individual students鈥攚as solidified when former President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002.
The law, which had bipartisan backing and functioned as an update to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, required states to test students in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school with a goal of bringing them all to a state-determined level of proficiency by the 2013-14 school year.
It also established sanctions for schools that failed to stay on track and make 鈥渁dequate yearly progress鈥� with test scores. The law gave states鈥攁mong other measures鈥攖he power to shut down schools that missed achievement targets several years in a row. Waivers to the law during the Obama administration loosened some of these rules but also required states to set up systems to evaluate teachers in part based on student test performance.
鈥淭hat enormously ramped up the pressure, particularly in low-achieving schools,鈥� Koretz said. 鈥淎t that point, teachers really had no choice. They really could either fail, cut corners, or cheat.鈥�
The law was later reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, which loosened the federal government鈥檚 role in K-12 schools, removed requirements that states evaluate teacher performance based on student outcomes, and gave states power to decide what should happen to schools that miss performance targets.
But the law maintained the standardized testing requirements established in NCLB.
鈥淭he heart of NCLB, which is test-based accountability, remains in place,鈥� Schneider said.
Advocating for a balanced approach
Some who oppose test-based accountability aren鈥檛 against standardized tests themselves. Large-scale standardized tests are useful in measuring how students in a certain state or across the country are performing compared to their peers.
But they are also limited. Critics say they offer only a snapshot of a student鈥檚 understanding of core subjects, making it difficult to determine whether a student performed poorly because they weren鈥檛 taught the material or because of outside factors like their mood, health, or home life.
Instead, testing experts say they鈥檇 like to see a more balanced approach to standardized tests. That means having more coherence among the large number of state and national assessments so they build off each other and can better help inform instruction and curriculum, said Scott Marion, the executive director of the Center for Assessment, a nonprofit focused on improving assessment and accountability practices.
It also means measuring students鈥� progress over time and the skills they鈥檝e acquired, not just changes in their scores from one test to another. Tests also need to provide feedback to teachers more quickly to be useful, Marion said.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 care that [a student] went up six points鈥攖hat might be good,鈥� Marion said. 鈥淏ut did she learn how to better organize her paragraphs, vary her sentence structure, things like that?鈥�
States can help ease the burden of accountability on schools by using the more balanced approach, and some states have, Marion said. But unless there are changes to federal law there will always be pressure for schools to produce high test scores.
The political outlook
Cardona鈥檚 message indicates a shifting perspective on the role standardized tests play in society, but not much has been done to actually change the federal law that lays out standardized tests鈥� role.
The Education Department could establish waivers, giving states more flexibility to create pilot projects to improve testing systems. And Congress could rewrite the law to put less of a focus on accountability.
But ultimately improvement would require more respect for education, Koretz said.
鈥淓ducation has a very low status in this country,鈥� he said. 鈥淎 lot of policymakers don鈥檛 respect teachers or any other educators. They don鈥檛 trust them. So, who are you going to trust to go in and evaluate schools if you don鈥檛 trust educators?鈥�
