Why Some States Limit Standardized Testing to Core Subjects
When you think of standardized tests in U.S. schools, chances are subjects like math and English come to mind. These are the pillars of state-mandated testing in most regions. But what about history, science, art, or music? Why aren’t these subjects consistently included in statewide assessments? The answer lies in a mix of policy priorities, funding constraints, and debates about the purpose of education itself. Let’s unpack the reasons behind this trend.
The Legacy of Federal Accountability Laws
A major driver of testing practices traces back to federal legislation. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 required states to test students annually in reading and math from grades 3–8 and once in high school. Science was added later but with fewer testing requirements. These mandates tied school funding and ratings to performance in these subjects, creating a high-stakes environment.
When the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) replaced NCLB in 2015, it gave states more flexibility. However, the focus on math and English remained ingrained. Schools, already stretched for time and resources, doubled down on these “core” areas to avoid penalties. This legacy has made it politically and logistically challenging for states to expand testing into other subjects.
Budgets and the Cost of Testing
Developing, administering, and grading standardized tests isn’t cheap. A single state exam can cost millions of dollars, factoring in question design, scoring, data analysis, and staff training. For many states, expanding testing to additional subjects is a financial nonstarter.
Consider a state already struggling to fund arts programs or update science labs. Diverting limited resources toward testing—rather than classroom resources—can feel counterproductive. Critics argue that money spent on testing could be better used for teacher salaries, technology, or extracurricular activities. As a result, policymakers often prioritize assessments only in areas with federal requirements or overwhelming public demand.
The “Teaching to the Test” Dilemma
One of the most common criticisms of standardized testing is that it narrows curriculum focus. When schools are judged solely on math and English scores, teachers may feel pressured to prioritize these subjects over others. This phenomenon, often called “teaching to the test,” can sideline history, music, or physical education—even if those subjects are officially part of the curriculum.
Expanding testing could theoretically broaden what’s taught, but opponents worry it would intensify the problem. If every subject had a high-stakes exam, schools might resort to shallow, test-prep-style instruction across the board, sacrificing depth and creativity. For example, art classes might become exercises in memorizing brushstroke techniques rather than fostering creativity.
Measuring Success in Non-Core Subjects
Some subjects are inherently harder to assess through standardized tests. How do you quantify a student’s ability to collaborate on a team project, play the violin, or think critically about historical events? While math and English have more concrete answers, subjects like art or social studies involve subjective judgment and skill application.
States experimenting with broader testing often face logistical hurdles. For instance, Colorado once introduced performance-based assessments in science, requiring students to conduct experiments. However, grading these tasks was time-consuming and inconsistent across districts. Without reliable, cost-effective evaluation methods, many states stick to traditional multiple-choice formats in “easier-to-measure” subjects.
Local Control vs. State Mandates
Education policy in the U.S. has long balanced federal guidelines, state authority, and local decision-making. Some states resist expanding testing simply to preserve local control. For example, a rural community might prioritize agricultural science, while an urban district focuses on technology. Statewide tests could undermine these localized priorities by imposing a one-size-fits-all framework.
Additionally, teachers and parents in many regions oppose increased testing, viewing it as bureaucratic overreach. In 2018, Oklahoma repealed a law requiring high school students to pass U.S. history and citizenship tests, citing pushback from educators who felt the exams added unnecessary stress.
The Case for Broader Assessment
Despite these challenges, advocates argue that limiting testing to a few subjects sends a message that other disciplines matter less. Research shows that students in schools with robust arts or science programs often perform better in core subjects, likely due to improved critical thinking and engagement. Finland, frequently cited for its education system, emphasizes a well-rounded curriculum with minimal standardized testing—yet consistently ranks high in global education surveys.
Some states are exploring alternatives to traditional exams. Portfolios, project-based assessments, and local performance reviews are gaining traction as ways to evaluate student growth without relying solely on standardized tests. New Hampshire’s Performance Assessment of Competency Education (PACE) program, for instance, uses a mix of state and local assessments to measure progress in multiple subjects.
Finding a Balance
The debate over standardized testing reflects broader questions about the goals of education. Is school primarily about preparing workers with job-ready skills? Cultivating informed citizens? Nurturing creativity? Different stakeholders have different answers.
For now, many states remain cautious about expanding testing due to cost, complexity, and cultural resistance. However, the conversation is shifting. As employers emphasize skills like problem-solving and adaptability—competencies often honed in non-core subjects—policymakers may need to rethink how they define and measure educational success.
In the end, the absence of statewide tests in certain subjects doesn’t mean they aren’t valued. It’s a reminder that education is multifaceted, and assessment tools must evolve to reflect the full range of student learning. Whether through innovative evaluation methods or policy reforms, the challenge lies in ensuring schools nurture all forms of intelligence—not just the ones easiest to score on a bubble sheet.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Why Some States Limit Standardized Testing to Core Subjects