The Puzzle of Limited State Testing: Why Some Subjects Stay Off the Radar
If you’ve ever glanced at a school’s curriculum, you’ll notice a wide range of subjects—from chemistry and literature to music and physical education. Yet when state testing season rolls around, the focus often narrows to math, reading, and occasionally science. This leaves many wondering: Why don’t states assess more subjects? The answer isn’t straightforward, but it reveals a lot about education priorities, politics, and the challenges of measuring success.
1. The Cost of Testing (And Who Foots the Bill)
Standardized tests aren’t cheap. Developing questions, administering exams, training staff, and analyzing results require significant funding. For states already stretching budgets to cover teacher salaries, textbooks, and facility upgrades, adding tests in subjects like art, social studies, or world languages can feel financially impractical.
Consider this: A single state-level exam can cost millions annually. Multiply that by multiple subjects, and the price tag becomes a dealbreaker for legislatures hesitant to raise taxes or reallocate funds. Critics argue that money would be better spent improving classroom resources rather than expanding testing. As one Colorado school board member put it, “Testing is a tool, not the end goal. We need to invest in learning, not just measuring.”
2. Federal Mandates vs. Local Control
Since the early 2000s, federal laws like No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and its successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), have required states to test students in core areas to ensure accountability. These subjects—math, English, and science—are seen as foundational skills for college and careers. However, the federal government leaves other subjects to state or district discretion.
This creates a tricky balancing act. While some states want to assess subjects like history or civics, others resist what they view as federal overreach. For example, Texas emphasizes its independence in curriculum decisions, often prioritizing state-specific standards over broader testing frameworks. Meanwhile, states like Massachusetts have experimented with history assessments but faced pushback from teachers who say standardized formats oversimplify complex topics.
3. The “Teaching to the Test” Dilemma
Critics of standardized testing warn that overemphasizing exams narrows classroom focus. If a subject isn’t tested, schools might deprioritize it—but if it is tested, teachers may feel pressured to “teach to the test,” drilling rote memorization over critical thinking. This Catch-22 discourages states from expanding assessments.
Art and music programs, for instance, thrive on creativity and experimentation—qualities hard to capture in multiple-choice formats. As a result, many states avoid testing these subjects to preserve their organic teaching methods. “Assessing a violin performance or a painting isn’t like grading a math quiz,” says Dr. Elena Torres, an arts education advocate. “When we try to standardize the unstandardizable, we risk losing the soul of these disciplines.”
4. Disagreement on What Matters Most
Education leaders have long debated which subjects deserve the most attention. STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) gained prominence in the 2010s due to concerns about global competitiveness. More recently, social-emotional learning (SEL) and climate literacy have entered the conversation. Yet testing frameworks struggle to keep up with these shifts.
Parents and policymakers often clash over priorities. While some communities push for coding or financial literacy to be tested, others argue that foundational skills like reading comprehension are non-negotiable. In rural states with workforce shortages, vocational training sometimes takes precedence over untested subjects like philosophy or advanced literature.
5. The Rise of Alternative Assessments
States aren’t entirely ignoring non-tested subjects—they’re just measuring them differently. Performance-based assessments, portfolios, and project evaluations are gaining traction. For example, Oregon allows students to demonstrate proficiency in health through community projects, while Kentucky uses writing portfolios to assess communication skills.
These methods require more time and nuance than traditional tests but offer a fuller picture of student growth. “A test can tell me if a kid knows geometry,” says high school principal Marcus Lee, “but a portfolio shows me how they solve problems, collaborate, and apply knowledge in real-world scenarios.”
So, What’s the Future of State Testing?
Change is brewing. The pandemic’s disruption of traditional testing has sparked conversations about reimagining assessment. States like New Hampshire and California are piloting competency-based models that blend academic and practical skills. Others are exploring “sampling” methods, where only a portion of students take exams in lesser-taught subjects to gauge statewide performance without overburdening schools.
Ultimately, the decision to test more subjects hinges on three questions:
– What do we value in education?
– How can we measure success without stifling creativity?
– Who should decide—politicians, educators, or communities?
As these debates continue, one thing is clear: The subjects we test (or don’t test) reflect what society deems essential—for better or worse. Whether that list grows will depend on our willingness to rethink not just what we teach, but how we evaluate what truly matters.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » The Puzzle of Limited State Testing: Why Some Subjects Stay Off the Radar